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.

Health and Prayer II - Why God still can't lose

I had a reply posted to a blog I wrote some time ago that I didn't feel I could do justice to in just the comments, so here's the full on reply.

The original post was one I made about the myth that prayer heals, and how patently ridiculous such an assertion is in the face of our need for modern evidence based medicine, you can find that here. The comment came here. I'll call the commenter littleinions in reference to the pseudonym they entered there.

The comment is, I think, a perfect example of what I was referring to in the original post - the "God can't lose" concept. That is to say, the seemingly miraculous is attributed to God and he gets all the credit for it, even in the face of the suffering that may have occurred. For example, God gets credit for saving one person in a plane crash and is praised for his miracle, but doesn't take the blame for the 250 other people who died in the same crash. If saving one is to God's credit, what is letting the others die? God can't lose because the majority of believers will then say they weren't meant to be saved, didn't pray hard enough or it wasn't part of the plan etc - God can't lose because only the good stuff is attributed to him - the bad stuff is rationalized away, but whatever the rationalization is, it is not God.

Carry this into health care though, and we often have people attribute someone's recovery from ill health to God and prayer or miracles - not to medical treatment and care, misdiagnosis or spontaneous remission. Yet, as I point out in the original post, if prayer really worked in the way that the religious claim we wouldn't have need of hospitals or evidence based medical care for two main reasons:

1. Nobody prays to become sick. People pray for good health and a long life - they don't pray to have a serious accident or incurable disease. If prayer worked no one would ever be sick - except I suppose the non-religious or non-devout, who either don't pray at all or don't pray enough (whatever that limit is).
2. If people were sick or injured then if prayer worked those illnesses or injuries would be immediately rectified or cured upon those people praying - nobody prays to continue to be sick or injured, they pray to be cured or to recover. If prayer worked they would not therefore need medical treatment and in countries where the religious are present in great numbers hospitals need not exist. This is demonstrably not true.

Further to these two points is the obvious one that the website Why Won't God Heal Amputees? makes. People who lose limbs, or who are born without them, never have those limbs come back despite praying for exactly that to happen. If prayer works, then why won't God heal amputees?

In which I respond to my first raving "pro"-lifer

I admit it took longer than I thought it would to attract my first truly raving "pro"-lifer to my post on the personhood movement, but it finally happened. An anonymous commenter left two responses that I thought required a more detailed response than that which can be provided in a simple comment, so I decided I would write a new post in reply to them.

One request though, please read and understand the original post before reading this, which is certainly more than our anonymous commenter did. Our intrepid "pro"-lifer merely repeats things I dismiss in the original post (as if repeating something shown to be stupid somehow makes it right the second time) or parrots all the usual talking points that they have heard from their pastor, priest, right wing radio host, right wing website, right wing friends. Nothing new or exciting, except the incoming Godwin, which I admit to hearing for the first time in the context of the abortion rights argument.

One further warning to our anonymous friend - pick a nickname/psuedonym to post under. Any subsequent anonymous comments will be deleted, not because you are right, not because I cannot respond, not because I'm afraid of the truth etc etc. So many comments get made by anonymous drive by commenters that having a name associated to your comment means I can respond to the right people. It's easy to do, you don't even have to register anywhere - just select 'Name/URL' from the drop down box labelled 'Comment As' underneath the text box you type your comment in, then pick a name, anything as long as it can be used to direct replies to.

For the purpose of this post, I will refer to the anonymous commenter as Gloria. In honour of renowned feminist and pro-abortion rights activist Gloria Steinem.

Why do you oppose gay marriage?

I've struggled for quite some time now to write a post about gay marriage rights (which really should just be gay rights, since marriage is a basic right for everyone). I've started a couple and deleted them because I just couldn't find the right approach or motivation to complete that I needed, until this weekend. I can always count on the Catholic Church to give me the motivation I need to point out how bloody hideous and ridiculous the whole bloated institution is, so when it started getting more vocal about gay rights it was all the help I needed. The post will hopefully be in two parts, the first dealing with the objections to gay marriage that I've heard or come across and the second dealing with the nonsense that came from the Catholic church this past week.


Objections to gay marriage rights

There are lots of different versions of the arguments put forward to oppose/demonize gay marriage rights, but the list below hopefully covers most of them in a general format - almost all the arguments you hear will fit either under one of these broader categories, or across more than one.

1. It's wrong.
2. It's against God's law/the Bible/the beliefs of religion X.
3. It's (meaning homosexuality) not natural.
4. Marriage is about procreation and gay people can't procreate/but gay people can't have children.
5. It's icky/makes me uncomfortable.
6. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.
7. Gay marriage would destroy/reduce/undermine all marriage.
8. I don't like gay people.
9. It's against the law.

Now, I may have missed some, and feel free to chime in with those, but broadly speaking every argument I have heard used against gay marriage fits in one or more of these at a time. And I'll be honest right from the start, I think they are all bloody stupid. Not a one of those is an argument that makes me want to re-evaluate my position - they are all idiotic. So let's take a look at why.

Why the personhood movement is wrong

Conservative 'pro-life' groups in the USA have always been looking for ways to overturn Roe v Wade and ban abortions of any form performed for any reason ever since the ruling was handed down, and their latest high profile strategy has been the attempted introduction of so called 'personhood' amendments in several US states. These amendments usually center around one principle - define life as beginning at fertilization, thereby granting full human rights to the newly formed combination of two gametes. Amendments that attempted this have already been rejected by voters in Colorado, Alaska and Mississippi. And this is a good thing. In fact, a very good thing. For one very good reason:

Defining human life as beginning at fertilization is arbitrary and stupid.

However, the national GOP would love to introduce a federal level personhood amendment - and this act of religious dogma dressed up as human rights concern needs to be fought and finally, utterly, defeated.

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.

More Catholic excuses

I say more, but what I really mean is "More of the same." A recent anonymous comment was added to an older post about the Catholic Church desperately trying to find anyone to blame but themselves for the recent and ongoing child sex abuse scandals revealed in multiple countries around the world. Rather than try to fit my reply into a couple of seperate comments thanks to bloggers annoying comment length limit, I thought that it was a good excuse for a new post, since I've been quiet for a while.

Our intrepid anonymous commenter (henceforth known as Beatrice) basically trotted out two excuses used with disturbing monotony by the Church and its apologists:

1. But it wasn't every priest doing it.
2. Blame it on the gays. If there were no gays, this wouldn't have happened.

Seen it before, often out of the mouths of very senior members of the Church. They were both bullshit the first time we heard them, and they're still bullshit now.

Health and prayer, and why God can't lose

The job I started last year takes me into a lot of hospitals, and a large percentage of them are actually religious institutions - and all of these religious facilities are Christian. I find these latter hospitals strangely contradictory places that, without knowing it, are particularly damning of the idea that prayer works. I've been going to these places for a few months now and had the vague feeling I wanted to blog about them but wasn't sure how and why, until recently when a number of things intersected and gave me a direction to take. One day I saw a picture in one facility that, in equal measures, creeped me out, made me laugh out loud and certainly cemented my decision never to have surgery there. Just before I saw the picture and afterwards, there were then a number of medical scares to close family members (one of my children and my dad) and finally I've been reading "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" Which I've linked to before and flicked through but never taken the time, until now, to read in its entirety.

In all honesty, if you've ever taken the time to read "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" then none of this should be new to you. But it is my take on some of the ideas presented there with a couple of new bits thrown in. If you haven't read it then why the hell not? It is much better than anything I've ever written on the topic!

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.

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....

Libertarianism - that's some dumb shit right there

I'm going to nail my colours to the mast right from the start on this one - libertarianism is one of the dumbest political ideologies/philosophies I've ever had the misfortune to come across. It's some dumb shit. Which is why it still surprises me that so many skeptics and critical thinkers cling to it so desperately and react so vehemently to criticism of it.

Now, it could be that I think it is some dumb shit because the only proponents of it I've argued with have been clueless half wits acting under the guise of intelligent critical thinkers and skeptics, after all my main exposure to it and its disciples was the idiots commenting and blogging on Goosing the Antithesis a couple of years ago (Francois Tremblay is an unbelievably arrogant first class arsehole, just in case you were wondering). But hanging around the skeptical blogosphere I regularly come across libertarians and they are almost without fail patronising arrogant wankers convinced of the absolute superiority of their own beliefs who utterly fail to convince me or any other nonbelievers that what they cling to is worth more than a leaky bucket of sheeps' piss.

Believers - Why so threatened?

After a conversation with a colleague at work I've been asking myself this question - why are believers so threatened by atheist non-belief? I think I know many of the possible answers anyway, so this is more rhetorical than anything else, but just exactly why do theists or believers of so many different stripes immediately begin the "Convert the non-believer" sub routine upon finding out that we don't hold to the same superstitions that they do?

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.

Sylvia Browne's 2010 predictions

Back from a couple of weeks off hanging with my folks I thought I would start off with a nice juicy topic - tearing Sylvia Browne's 2010 predictions into little tiny pieces. Alright, it wouldn't be that juicy since it would be easier than breathing, but it would have been fun.

Of course I soon stumbled into a problem with this - you can't actually read Browne's 2010 predictions in full unless you are a member of her inner circle. And I'll be fucked with a rusty Buick before I give that charlatan any money, even if it is just so I can have the pleasure of showing her to be the useless fraud that she is.

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.

Ryan's back! Go read him

Ryan's back after a break from blogging - go check his blog out, I guarantee it will be interesting.

Acupuncture and infection

Remember how all those alternative medicine advocates like to complain about the side effects and dangers of modern medicine? Remember how they either imply or flat out claim that there are no such dangers from alternative medicine? Well, not surprisingly, it turns out that when people look at this kind of claim critically and scientifically the alties are not exactly correct.