Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...

Lisa (MomOf2Gals) lets out some steam against Dan and the critics. Michael Kopp strikes back. Michael Kopp gives me a free lesson in how to unsubscribe from the list. Dan Dugan praises Michael's battle against the Dark Ages of anthroposophy. Michael's anger is psychoanalyzed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: MomOf2Gals
Subject: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:18:51 EDT

To Dan and the other anti-SWA cult out there who post on this list! (But mostly to Dan, who, in a lame but appreciated effort to be nice, nonetheless insulted my intelligence ...)

Just because I have embraced some of the tenets of SWA does not make me a robotic, brainwashed idiot! Despite what you WISH to believe, there are those of us out there who are intelligent, free-thinking, open-minded individuals who happen to find that some of the teachings of a man named Rudolf Steiner make sense to us in our lives as human beings in a very real, very meaningful way.

Dan, you said that I am not to blame for being ``taken in '' (or some such language as that) by the rantings of Joseph Chilton Pearce and company because it is hard for consumers to distinguish between truth and fantasy. You obviously believe that YOU can distinguish between the two yourself, but that those of us who might find that some of what JCP and others have to say resonates with our reality cannot. That is such an ego-maniacal, stuck-up and conceited viewpoint that I was awestruck that you would have the nerve to talk down to me in such a way! Before this, I was impressed by the level of dialogue -- even heated dialogue -- o n this list.

After reading that particular post, though, I found myself feeling angry. I am a college educated woman, 40 years old, with close to 20 years of experience as an investigative reporter for newspapers. I am a specialist in science and medical reporting -- yet you talk down to myself and others as if you and you alone know anything at all about telling truth from falsehood.

***I have a question for you, Dan, and for others like you: If you so much believe that anthroposophy/Steiner/Waldorf education is a bogus cult, nonesense or just not worthwhile, why in the name of God do you spend so much time arguing with people about it? Why not just ignore it, cut it out of your reality, and move on with your own lives? My feeling is that you recognize that somewhere within it there lies some meaningful -- if uncomfortable -- universal truths. Because you are uncomfortable with these things, you feel you must wrestle them down one by one. You must work hard to make sure others do not believe in them, or give them any credence.

I would very much like a straightforward response to that question: Why spend so much time (and online, time is money) trying to steer people away from SWA?

OK, my steam is blown off. I am ready to move on. I hope you are, too.

--Lisa

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:20:47 +1200

Lisa (Mom-of-2-gals) who won't give her last name, writes (and I'm replying because I fall into her second category -- critics "other" than Dan Dugan):

Just because I have embraced some of the tenets of SWA does not make me a robotic, brainwashed idiot! Despite what you WISH to believe, there are those of us out there who are intelligent, free-thinking, open-minded individuals who happen to find that some of the teachings of a man named Rudolf Steiner make sense to us in our lives as human beings in a very real, very meaningful way.

Michael KOPP says:

You left out "critical" and "skeptical" and "rational" in the thinking department, which is the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?

The hallmark of SWA proselytization is that it is for people who are "open-minded" and "free-thinking". Steiner used the guru trick of telling people they had to find the answers for themselves.

It's no surprise that nobody has gone beyond Steiner in 75 years. Maybe, like the Catholic cult, it will take centuries for any progress, and the critics are impatient sods. Maybe, on the other hand, it won't change at all, since most SWA people on this list write as if they believe Steiner infallible. So's the Pope.

LISA:

Dan, you said that I am not to blame for being ``taken in '' (or somesuch language as that) by the rantings of Joseph Chilton Pearce and company because it is hard for consumers to distinguish between truth and fantasy. You obviously believe that YOU can distinguish between the two yourself, but that those of us who might find that some of what JCP and others have to say resonates with our reality cannot. That is such an ego-maniacal, stuck-up and conceited viewpoint that I was awestruck that you would have the nerve to talk down to me in such a way! Before this, I was impressed by the level of dialogue -- even heated dialogue -- o n this list.

After reading that particular post, though, I found myself feeling angry.

KOPP:

The logical conclusion of your last sentence is that now that you are angry at Dan Dugan you are no longer impressed with the level of dialogue of the rest of us. Why don't you see if you can separate your anger at Dan Dugan from your apparent transference of anger to the rest of us.

LISA:

I am a college educated woman, 40 years old, with close to 20 years of experience as an investigative reporter for newspapers. I am a specialist in science and medical reporting -- yet you talk down to myself and others as if you and you alone know anything at all about telling truth from falsehood.

KOPP:

I am a college-educated man, 55 years old, with close to 30 years of experience as an investigative reporter for several media. I was for a time a specialist in science and medical reporting (I won a national award for science reporting, given by the scientists themselves, for my Radio New Zealand work in 1991).

I think I am pretty "open-minded" and "free-thinking"; I acknowledge that everything that Steiner said may be true, and that there may be a supernatural world of which I see no evidence.

Lisa wrote to me privately, and I wrote back to Lisa privately -- and not at all in the manner which she finds objectionable in Dan Dugan -- explaining why *I* was angry about Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical practices. I sent her an earlier post of mine that tells a bit about my experiences with a Steiner school, and included Dan Saykaly's proposed "disclosure list".

One of the principles of journalism -- especially investigative journalism -- is that one requires corroboration and evidence of whatever is subject to investigation.

The difference between Lisa (and most of the rest of the SWA crowd) and the critics is that Lisa's and SWAs' "open-mindedness" and "free-thinking" leads them to _believe_ there _is_ evidence of supernatural things, in the words of Steiner, and the words of his followers, reporting on *the content of their minds (or spirits)*.

But an investigative reporter (like a good scientist) insists on having more than the reports of what others *believe*. But there is no tangible evidence for a supernatural or spiritual existence, and so the investigation into SWA comes down to eludidating its beliefs, and the actions of its adherents and practitioners. Facts and actions speak louder than beliefs and ideas.

The fact that certain things in SWA or Joseph Chilton Peirce "make sense to us [Lisa and other SWA believers] in our lives as human beings in a very real, very meaningful way" does not constitute the evidence that science -- or good journalism -- demands.

If Lisa applied her investigative journalistic yardstick to SWA (as do I) she might see that her anger is misplaced.

(Lisa has not replied to my private messages.)

LISA:

***I have a question for you, Dan, and for others like you: If you so much believe that anthroposophy/Steiner/Waldorf education is a bogus cult, nonesense or just not worthwhile, why in the name of God do you spend so much time arguing with people about it? Why not just ignore it, cut it out of your reality, and move on with your own lives?

KOPP:

I can't answer for Dugan and the other critics; for me, it's an investigative journalism project. And yes, I admit to a bias. I admit that I cannot be completely objective about the issue, because I and my children have been personally harmed by SWA.

However, any journalist who says they are unbiased and objective is either a liar or a fool.

What we should seek in journalism is fairness, accuracy of reporting, and balance, which includes the admission of our biases. (Unlike science, good journalism does not seek "truth".)

That's what we have on this list: a balance between believers and skeptics. (Well, as my statistics showed, it's rather an imbalance, in favour of the SWA side -- I can't keep up with the 5-1 or greater ratio of SWA attacks on every post I make; I sometimes feel like the Lone Ranger. Seldom do I see five or more critics responding to some post of the SWA Defenders of the Faith [TM].)

One of the reasons so many critics can't get SWA out of their systems is because when they were involved in SWA, they were told much the same thing as Lisa is suggesting that Dan and other critics do: "if you don't like it, just leave, because we're so open-minded and free-thinking that you will never get us to change anything about the way we educate your children, or what we believe and practice upon them, and we're not the least bit interested in anything you have to say unless you agree with us 100 percent".

LISA:

My feeling is that you recognize that somewhere within it there lies some meaningful -- if uncomfortable -- universal truths. Because you are uncomfortable with these things, you feel you must wrestle them down one by one. You must work hard to make sure others do not believe in them, or give them any credence.

KOPP:

No critic on this list wants to stop people believing in SWA. Critics constantly repeat that they believe people have inalienable rights to such beliefs.

Your characterization of critics as apostate closet believers who can't live with their own contradictions is an insult to me, personally, as an intellectual, and a bit arrogant on Lisa's part to be so presumptuous.

For the record, I never said Lisa was a "robotic, brainwashed idiot", and I don't think anyone else did, either.

LISA:

I would very much like a straightforward response to that question: Why spend so much time (and online, time is money) trying to steer people away from SWA?

KOPP:

Online time is cheap, compared to any other medium of public discussion. Anyone who tries to set limits on discussion on the Internet based on the supposed expense of e-mail transfer, is either subscribed to the wrong Internet Service Provider (ISP), or so poor they shouldn't even be able to afford a computer, or living in a rural area where they have toll charges to connect. Even there, e-mail is dirt-cheap (as opposed to live browsing of Web sites or newsgroups, or chatting on-line). That's why e-mail discussion lists were invented. (Actually, it's not: they predate the World Wide Web and other Internet services by 20 or more years, back to the time when it was the ONLY technological way.)

As to critics' motivation: call it consumerism. Critics just want SWA to come clean about itself in its false advertising and duplicity of parents, so that those people will be well-informed about what they are getting into.

And, as I'm sure you _must_ understand by now, because critics believe the SWA religious education has no place in public or publicly-funded schools.

LISA:

OK, my steam is blown off. I am ready to move on. I hope you are, too.
--Lisa

KOPP:

Okay, I hope it helped. And I hope the answers to your questions will help you to use your intelligence, education, and professional experience to get around your beliefs and take a closer, more critical look at SWA. If you want to go on believing part or all of it, that's fine with me. If you want to go on believing without taking my advice about critical, skeptical thinking, or you're offended by my suggesting other ways for you to approach it, that's fine with me, too, and I apologize if I sound condescending or patronizing.

Write to me anytime you feel like it.

Just don't ask me to shut up.

Cheers from Godzone,

Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 04:23:41 EDT

Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:

You left out "critical" and "skeptical" and "rational" in the thinking department, which is the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?

I think that's pretty good for arrogance!

Bruce

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:17:54 +1200

Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:

You left out "critical" and "skeptical" and "rational" in the thinking department, which is the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?

I think that's pretty good for arrogance!

Bruce

Are you having some difficulty with the syntax, Brucey?

Does is sound like a double entendre?

Or are you complimenting me?

You could be a little less obscure in your comments, Brucey.

Cheers from Godzone,

Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:27:52 EDT

Michael cited Bruces Citation of his mail:

Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:

You left out "critical" and "skeptical" and "rational" in the thinking department, which is the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?

I think that's pretty good for arrogance!

Bruce

Are you having some difficulty with the syntax, Brucey?

I don't think so!

Does is sound like a double entendre?

Are you having a little difficulty with the syntax, Michael? "Is" sounds more English than "a double entendre"!

Or are you complimenting me?

Well, I'll try anything once if it's not illegal!

You could be a little less obscure in your comments, Brucey.

I guess I could, but then maybe I am the brainwashed idiot - after all I am still here, even if only lurking, and what you SWA (did I write that) critics are doing is pretty close to brainwashing. Why dont you go back to mutually shooting each other in the foot?

warmly <g>

Brucey (since you seem rather partial to my "y"!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:36:26 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp

Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:

You left out "critical" and "skeptical" and "rational" in the thinking department, which is the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?

I think that's pretty good for arrogance!

Bruce

Are you having some difficulty with the syntax, Brucey?

Does is sound like a double entendre?

Or are you complimenting me?

You could be a little less obscure in your comments, Brucey.

Michael,

I didn't think he was being obscure at all. You were the straight man for him. It was not a compliment. Frankly, I wish I had spotted the opportunity first.

Bob

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: MomOf2Gals
Subject: Lisa on Lisa -- and Michael and Dan and et al ..
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:25:40 EDT

Oh Michael Kopp and Dan Dugan and other ``critics'' here!

Michael, first of all, I don't give my last name because I am, admittedly, a bit paranoid about some online disclosure. My husband thinks I am crazy to spend any time here at all, and was upset that I even gave the city where I live. (He is a newspaper editor with more than 20 years of experience, and we both have seen -- as I am sure have you, Michael, those horrible stories about people meeting online and then having one of those psychos track them down and kill, torture, rape, etc. them. So please excuse my little attempt at some semblance of self-protection. If you knew me in person, you would know that I am considered an ``open book'' by friends and acquaintances in the newsroom and neighborhood.)

On to what Michael Kopp said regarding journalism (and I never meant my mentioning that we share the same profession to set off a ``I-can-top-you-with-all-my-awards-and-prizes'' fest ) I am sure you are a fine and respected science writer (you certainly seem to put your faith in the scientific process!!)

As for me, I am now a small time reporter for a chain of Los Angeles Times-Mirror weeklies, because they allow me the flex time I think is important for me as a parent. As a professional reporter, I do follow all of those hallmarks of proof and corroboration that Mr. Kopp in the Godzone (what is that? his city? or just a little inside joke? Please someone, explain!) mentions. But I also have learned something I think is very important in my 20-plus years of observing as a professional and examining and writing: the truth is not always apparent, or able to be proved by experts, etc. In other words, the double-blind method of proof is not infallible, and leaves out much, IMHO.

Take a story I worked on for months and months years ago when I was a fulltime science writer for The Baltimore Sun. It was about the healing power of prayer. I talked to many, many people who felt strongly that they had been healed and helped through prayer and meditation, etc., but they had no proof, except their regained good health. (Of course, doctors explained that away as just a spontaneous remission, or the power of the mind, etc.) Then, years later, along comes a doctor, Larry Dossey, who documents at least a little bit the power that prayer may have in healing. Have you heard -- and I am sure you have -- about the study during which patients in a coronary care unit (post MI) were prayed for by name by a group of people to whom they were not acquainted? A control group of patients who were NOT prayed for also was studied. Those who WERE prayed for recovered much more quickly, and had less relapses and interventions. How the hell are you gonna explain that one, Michael? Chance? Dumb luck? Yeah, I know; it was just one instance. But look at one, and you will begin to find more. It's like peeling an onion -- each layer reveals another and another.

Years ago, no one would have believed that a pet would make such a difference in the health and recovery of hospitalized patients. Now, along comes an article in JAMA a few years ago saying that the presence of an animal in the home is the single greatest predictor of recovery for elderly people who have suffered a heart attack or broken hip and been hospitalized. Or the studies that show married men, no matter how unhappily married, live longer than their single counterparts? What about the studies that show that people with religious beliefs have a lower diastolyic blood pressure? I could go on and on, but you get the picture, dontcha? I am not saying that I believe in every sentence uttered by Steiner, Salk, Spock or by anyone for that matter. I am just saying that as adults and as parents and as living, breathing citizens of a complicated world, we should be intelligent enough and critical enough and have enough good judgment to keep in mind the possibility that there are some things out there that scientists and doctors do not yet know. (Look at the history of science and its full of instances where folks were called nuts and crazy for believing in things that were later proven.)

The whole issue of the existence of GOD is one such topic. I assume from Mr. Kopp's postings that belief in God must not be possible, as it cannot be proven. I won't bore you with the old argument that you cannot see love, either, but its there. I just find myself more and more surprised (and delighted) that as I age and gain experience, I am more and more open to the idea that there is a whole realm of existence that we as humans know little to nothing about. **One more thing: I don't think being ``open minded'' means one needs let the wind blow in one ear and out the other. I think it means, on the contrary, that one should be intelligent enough to recognize what one does not know and to have the humility to be willing to be taught. That's why I think it is often fascinating to speak with children -- they still (on the whole) have a fresh viewpoint on things. I feel I learn a lot from my four year old.

As to whether Steiner schools should be state funded, well, of course not! To me, they are private, independent schools just as a Catholic school is a private and independent school. Is public funding for Steiner schools a big issue there in New Zealand? Here in the US, I have heard of only one public Steiner school -- the one in the Milwaukee area. I am not sure what to think about that. As I still stand firm that the schools do not TEACH anthroposophy, I would be willing to say that I think the public education system has a lot to learn about how to approach children and education from the Waldorf schools. But public funding in general -- naw!

**One more note to Mr. Kopp: You're right. Arguing, debating, etc. on e-mail IS cheap financially. But timewise it is expensive. You stated your aims quite clearly as to why you do it -- because you feel a grievous wrong has been done you and your children through what I must guess is a public Waldorf school -- and I must as a fair person commend you for wanting to protect others. I guess what I am still muddy on is what wrong you feel WAS committed. I vow to go back through my older e-mail and reread what you sent me, before responding to you again.

I also apologise to any and all who felt I sounded self-righteous or stuck-up in my angry post. I am sorry. I really am not a conceited person (in fact, like many women, I struggle mightily with my self esteem.) The one thing I feel sure of, though, is that I am intelligent enough to deal with matters more lofty than the household budget, etc. Which is the reason I am engaging in this dialogue at all!

Signing off, for now!

Lisa NoLastName in Baltimore

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:00:05 -0700

Michael Kopp, you wrote,

What we should seek in journalism is fairness, accuracy of reporting, and balance, which includes the admission of our biases. (Unlike science, good journalism does not seek "truth".)

That's what we have on this list: a balance between believers and skeptics. (Well, as my statistics showed, it's rather an imbalance, in favour of the SWA side -- I can't keep up with the 5-1 or greater ratio of SWA attacks on every post I make; I sometimes feel like the Lone Ranger. Seldom do I see five or more critics responding to some post of the SWA Defenders of the Faith [TM].)

For myself, Michael, I'm very grateful that you have been here, passionately defending rationality against the new dark ages. Lately I have been putting all my "public service time" into preparation for the lawsuit; in recent days that meant a total of nine hours of being deposed by the other side, in three sessions, with 3-1/2 hours of driving time for each session. This work is much more important than debating on the list. It could lead to the removal of public funding from Waldorf programs in all the U.S. I certainly feel better about being absent from the list with you here, Michael.

-Dan Dugan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 00:45:55 -0700

Lisa, you wrote,

To Dan and the other anti-SWA cult out there who post on this list! (But mostly to Dan, who, in a lame but appreciated effort to be nice, nonetheless insulted my intelligence ...)

Just because I have embraced some of the tenets of SWA does not make me a robotic, brainwashed idiot!

I didn't say that.

Despite what you WISH to believe, there are those of us out there who are intelligent, free-thinking, open-minded individuals who happen to find that some of the teachings of a man named Rudolf Steiner make sense to us in our lives as human beings in a very real, very meaningful way.

Your choice. To me, he says so much nonsense that it isn't worth the trouble studying him for the things that may be right. You should be aware that today's sophisticated cults appeal to "intelligent, free-thinking, open-minded individuals." That's where the money is.

Dan, you said that I am not to blame for being ``taken in '' (or somesuch language as that) by the rantings of Joseph Chilton Pearce and company because it is hard for consumers to distinguish between truth and fantasy. You obviously believe that YOU can distinguish between the two yourself, but that those of us who might find that some of what JCP and others have to say resonates with our reality cannot. That is such an ego-maniacal, stuck-up and conceited viewpoint that I was awestruck that you would have the nerve to talk down to me in such a way! Before this, I was impressed by the level of dialogue -- even heated dialogue -- o n this list.

After reading that particular post, though, I found myself feeling angry. I am a college educated woman, 40 years old, with close to 20 years of experience as an investigative reporter for newspapers. I am a specialist in science and medical reporting -- yet you talk down to myself and others as if you and you alone know anything at all about telling truth from falsehood.

Look, Lisa, I'm not talking from ignorance here. I bought JCP's book and read every damn page. He may be right, but the book is -all fluff-. As I said, the only reference to a study I could find was an article in Sports Illustrated. Given his recent absurd theme of "heart intelligence," I can confidently dismiss him as a quack and a demogogue. He's telling people what they want to hear. I'm sure some of what he says is true, but like Steiner, he's not worth the trouble.

***I have a question for you, Dan, and for others like you: If you so much believe that anthroposophy/Steiner/Waldorf education is a bogus cult, nonesense or just not worthwhile, why in the name of God do you spend so much time arguing with people about it? Why not just ignore it, cut it out of your reality, and move on with your own lives?

Because I know about it, and the public is being flim-flammed. A sense of duty. Besides, it's a fascinating hobby.

My feeling is that you recognize that somewhere within it there lies some meaningful -- if uncomfortable -- universal truths. Because you are uncomfortable with these things, you feel you must wrestle them down one by one. You must work hard to make sure others do not believe in them, or give them any credence.

With all due respect, your amateur psychoanalysis misses the mark.

I would very much like a straightforward response to that question: Why spend so much time (and online, time is money) trying to steer people away from SWA?

OK, my steam is blown off. I am ready to move on. I hope you are, too.

I'll be moving on when Waldorf is out of public education and my book is published. Then I'm going to work on Anthroposophical Medicine.

-Dan Dugan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:30:58 -0700

Lisa (MomOf2Gals) wrote >

In a curiously misguided attempt to convince us that "Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...", Lisa (MomOf2Gals@aol.com) somehow decided to demonstrate her scientific astuteness and depth by relating this tale:

Take a story I worked on for months and months, years ago when I was a fulltime science writer for The Baltimore Sun. It was about the healing power of prayer.

Really, a "fulltime science writer", in the shadow of the Nation's capitol has the time and motivation to spend "months and months" on the healing power of prayer. No double-blind studies here, just the pursuit of truth by talking to the healed.

I talked to many, many people who felt strongly that they had been healed and helped through prayer and meditation, etc., but they had no proof, except their regained good health. (Of course, doctors explained that away as just a spontaneous remission, or the power of the mind, etc.)

I do hope we someday get a chance to read this story for ourselves. Did the story explore the less photogenic experience of individuals who did not get better, even after massive amounts of devout prayer? And, what about the medical history of athiests around Baltimore? Did they get better less often, or perhaps feel any worse than religious people when they recover? I wonder who was praying for the people who died in Kosovo?

Then, years later, along comes a doctor, Larry Dossey, who documents at least a little bit the power that prayer may have in healing. Have you heard -- and I am sure you have -- about the study during which patients in a coronary care unit (post MI) were prayed for by name by a group of people to whom they were not acquainted?

Yes, this study is infamous. And of all the really valuable medical research conducted during this period, most individuals would be hard pressed to name more than this. The press, in fact amplifies events like this because of their "newsworthiness". But ask yourself, where are the convincing low-tech replications of this would-be scientific breakthrough?

A control group of patients who were NOT prayed for also was studied. Those who WERE prayed for recovered much more quickly, and had less relapses and interventions. How the hell are you gonna explain that one, Michael? Chance? Dumb luck?

Could be. But as a fulltime science reporter like yourself surely knows, the most likely explanation for this "effect" is poor experimental design. Believers who conduct these type of experiments for the first time often find a lot of correlations that do not bear the test of time. Science is not governed by "innocent until proven guilty" rules. Let's face it, this is another version of the same old claim of the existence of some form of spirit or throught. Science has not yet found proof of this often asserted phenomenon, even after over 200 years of intense searching for a single replicable test.

Yeah, I know; it was just one instance. But look at one, and you will begin to find more. It's like peeling an onion -- each layer reveals another and another.

It is frankly a sad joke to see anyone take doctor Larry Dossey's report seriously, much less to use it as a metaphor that we are revealing some new layer of the onion. I say it's the same old layer of the onion, the power of self-delusion.

-- Daniel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org

mail@eb-skeptics.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 00:31:13 +0200

Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:

You left out "critical" and "skeptical" and "rational" in the thinking department, which is the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?

Bruce wrote:

I think that's pretty good for arrogance!

Irrationality, self-contradictions, irrelevant insults, and the projection of such qualities onto the target is what characterizes innumerable posts from WE critics.

A lot of it reminds me of Nazi propaganda against Jews, gypsies, and other minorities. They were portrayed as lyers, cheats, dishonest, conspirators, etc. And as I pointed out earlier, the first WE Critic was a Nazi and an anti-semite, Dietrich Eckart, who started his attacks against Rudolf Steiner is 1919, the very year the first Waldorf school opened. In those days, Steiner was portrayed as a money-hungry, megalomaniac Jew, a Sionist, and a Communist. Today, he's a fascist, a Nazi, and a Jew-hater. But the spirit of such attacks has remained the same, springing from the same source that produced Adolf Hitler.

Tarjei

http://www.uncletaz.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:36:28 +1200

Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:

You left out "critical" and "skeptical" and "rational" in the thinking department, which is the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?

Bruce wrote:

I think that's pretty good for arrogance!

Irrationality, self-contradictions, irrelevant insults, and the projection of such qualities onto the target is what characterizes innumerable posts from WE critics.

A lot of it reminds me of Nazi propaganda against Jews, gypsies, and other minorities. They were portrayed as lyers, cheats, dishonest, conspirators, etc. And as I pointed out earlier, the first WE Critic was a Nazi and an anti-semite, Dietrich Eckart, who started his attacks against Rudolf Steiner is 1919, the very year the first Waldorf school opened. In those days, Steiner was portrayed as a money-hungry, megalomaniac Jew, a Sionist, and a Communist. Today, he's a fascist, a Nazi, and a Jew-hater. But the spirit of such attacks has remained the same, springing from the same source that produced Adolf Hitler.

Tarjei

http://www.uncletaz.com/

Tarjei, you still here?

Still spouting the same old shit, I see.

Of course, it doesn't matter what a critic says, or what evidence is produced, it's all nonsense to the Tarjeis of the world.

I thought you asked Dan Dugan to unsubscribe you? What happened: Saint Rudi come to you in a dream and beg you to stay on, and spout some more bullshit?

I know I should welcome your staying on the WC list: you're one of the best advertisements for the irrationality and wild-hare behaviour of the Defenders of the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical crowd.

And I do, truly, enjoy seeing you go apoplectic about my modest efforts at elucidating the true nature of Anthroposphy and Waldorf Education, and their stealthy link with each other.

But if you're having trouble unsubscribing, here's how to do it "from the instructions you were mailed by the mail server when you subscribed, but which you obviously didn't keep, or can't find in your junk-heap of a computer:

HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE

To unsubsuscribe, send an e-mail message *from the address you're subscribed at* to:

waldorf-critics-request@lists.best.com

The subject field has no effect on the operation. In the message body put *only*:

unsubscribe

There now, hope that helps, Tarjei. Been nice knowin' ya! See ya in another life, maybe?

Cheers from Godzone,

Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:00:51 +0200

Michael Kopp wrote:

<Irrelevant juvenile personal insults snipped>

I thought you asked Dan Dugan to unsubscribe you? What happened: Saint Rudi come to you in a dream and beg you to stay on, and spout some more bullshit?

Saint Rudy came to me and suggested I gave Dan an option to get rid of me. The latter did not take advantage of this opportunity.

<more immature personal attacks snipped>

About your personal insults: You must be really hurting somewhere. What did those Waldorf teachers do to you? Steal your fortune? Gang rape someone close to you? Your hatred of WE and anthroposophy, with which you do everything in your power to deliberately hurt everyone connected with it, is very bitter, and it reminds me of an ad I have seen against racism that goes approximately like this: "You're drowning, but a hand pulls you out. The hand is black. Is that a problem?"

Let's rephraze that:

"You're drowning, but a hand pulls you out. The hand belongs to an anthropop. Is that a problem?"

Tarjei

Tarjei Straume

Greetings from Uncle Taz

http://www.uncletaz.com/

Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:56:21 +1200

Tarjei Straume wrote:

Michael Kopp wrote:

<Irrelevant juvenile personal insults snipped>

I thought you asked Dan Dugan to unsubscribe you? What happened: Saint Rudi come to you in a dream and beg you to stay on, and spout some more bullshit?

And STRAUME replied:

Saint Rudy came to me and suggested I gave Dan an option to get rid of me. The latter did not take advantage of this opportunity.

KOPP says:

Dan must be on vacation, or he's not on the same wavelength as Saint Rudi.

Did you TELL Dan you had been instructed by the guru-in-chief to give DAN the opportunity of either unsubscribing you or ignoring you?

Well, let me send a brainwave to Dan: PLEASE DO AS TARJEI SAYS! Don't deny him the right to leave us to rational debate.

<more immature personal attacks snipped>

KOPP:

Where, exactly is the personal attack? I simply said you were full of shit (before the first time you said you would unsub), and in the post you're now replying to, I said you were STILL pushing the same old shit. I haven't called you any names, I've simply characterized your rambling, raving posts.

STRAUME:

About your personal insults: You must be really hurting somewhere. What did those Waldorf teachers do to you? Steal your fortune? Gang rape someone close to you?

KOPP:

Well, now that you mention it ... there have been reports from several Waldorf schools around the globe (some on this list, some to me privately, that I haven't checked out yet and won't report until I do) about sexual abuse in Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools.

You know, you're onto something there, Tarjei: what happened to me, my wife, and my kids IS something very like gang rape -- a sort of psychological (can't be spiritual, as none of us believe in spiritualism) and personal violation, by stealth, of our intellectual, emotional and moral beings, perpetrated by an entire pack of "spiritual" cultists.

Maybe *I'm* the one in need of deprogramming -- except that I never did believe any of their mumbo jumbo, which was the reason there was strife and an eventual divorce.

But (if talking about it won't expose me to insults for hanging out my credentials, like saying I was a prize-winning reporter did) I do have some personal experience with traumatic events, both on and off battlefields. I almost got killed four times in Vietnam; my roommate did. I know a lot -- both personally and professionally -- about post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

I think this list and my journalistic exposure of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools false advertising, duplicity, poor pedagogy, and assorted other wrongs, is my own personal therapy for my guilt at not having seen how warped and weird SWA was *before* enrolling my kids. That's despite having done more homework (beforehand) than almost anyone I've heard of.

You want to make fun of that, Tarjei?

STRAUME:

Your hatred of WE and anthroposophy, with which you do everything in your power to deliberately hurt everyone connected with it, is very bitter, and it reminds me of an ad I have seen against racism that goes approximately like this: "You're drowning, but a hand pulls you out. The hand is black. Is that a problem?"

Let's rephraze that:

"You're drowning, but a hand pulls you out. The hand belongs to an anthropop. Is that a problem?"

KOPP:

I've been `saved', in one way or another, by blacks, Asians, American Indians, Maoris, Pacific Islanders, preachers, athiests, holy-rollers, dogs ... and even Anthroposophists. I wouldn't even reject *your* hand, Tarjei.

You'd love to believe I am hateful and bitter and twisted. Well, I am angry, still, and will be until I finish my work; I am a little bit bitter, but that's going away as my children heal. What you see here on the list is just the cynicism of age and the dread of a coming world where cults like Anthroposophy might become as dangerous as Scientology and Aum Shinrikyu.

At the moment I think Anthroposophy is pretty benign -- though the tales of Bob Jones in Wisconsin are a bit hair-raising. But who knows what it could become? Especially if it gets a foothold in public schools?

Cheers from Godzone,

Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:30:41 +0200

Tarjei Straume wrote:

Michael Kopp wrote:

<Irrelevant juvenile personal insults snipped>

I thought you asked Dan Dugan to unsubscribe you? What happened: Saint Rudi come to you in a dream and beg you to stay on, and spout some more bullshit?

And STRAUME replied:

Saint Rudy came to me and suggested I gave Dan an option to get rid of me. The latter did not take advantage of this opportunity.

KOPP says:

Dan must be on vacation, or he's not on the same wavelength as Saint Rudi.

Did you TELL Dan you had been instructed by the guru-in-chief to give DAN the opportunity of either unsubscribing you or ignoring you?

No I didn't, because I wasn't aware at that point that I was getting instructions from Saint Rudy. But when you reminded me that I had, I understood what the message had been.

Well, let me send a brainwave to Dan: PLEASE DO AS TARJEI SAYS! Don't deny him the right to leave us to rational debate.

Interesting. Your posts are packed with irrational emotionalism.

<more immature personal attacks snipped>

KOPP:

Where, exactly is the personal attack?

"I know I should welcome your staying on the WC list: you're one of the best advertisements for the irrationality and wild-hare behaviour of the Defenders of the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical crowd." This is what I snipped. Bu irrationality you dont simply mean irrational ideas that are added to the rational ones; they have replaced them. By rational, logical thinking, you mean intelligence. You are suggesting that I am less intelligent than a skeptic/agnostic/atheist, even less intelligent than average human beings.

When I say that your posts contain irrational elements, I mean that these are added to your rational arguments. There is a vital difference.

I simply said you were full of shit (before the first time you said you would unsub), and in the post you're now replying to, I said you were STILL pushing the same old shit. I haven't called you any names, I've simply characterized your rambling, raving posts.

No sweat. I have always regarded your attacks as compliments. What I react against is preposterous lies and off-the-wall conspiracy bunk.

STRAUME:

About your personal insults: You must be really hurting somewhere. What did those Waldorf teachers do to you? Steal your fortune? Gang rape someone close to you?

KOPP:

Well, now that you mention it ... there have been reports from several Waldorf schools around the globe (some on this list, some to me privately, that I haven't checked out yet and won't report until I do) about sexual abuse in Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools.

I guess that means that Waldorf schools tend to produce sexual aggression among the teachers, or that sexually dangerous individuals are drawn to Waldorf schools like magnets.

You know, you're onto something there, Tarjei: what happened to me, my wife, and my kids IS something very like gang rape -- a sort of psychological (can't be spiritual, as none of us believe in spiritualism) and personal violation, by stealth, of our intellectual, emotional and moral beings, perpetrated by an entire pack of "spiritual" cultists.

It looks like your family was made ill by Waldorf and anthroposophy, perhaps on purpose.

Personally, I will need to hear both sides of this story before I can make a private judgement about the matter.

Maybe *I'm* the one in need of deprogramming -- except that I never did believe any of their mumbo jumbo, which was the reason there was strife and an eventual divorce.

But (if talking about it won't expose me to insults for hanging out my credentials, like saying I was a prize-winning reporter did) I do have some personal experience with traumatic events, both on and off battlefields. I almost got killed four times in Vietnam; my roommate did. I know a lot -- both personally and professionally -- about post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

That might explain a few things.

I think this list and my journalistic exposure of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools false advertising, duplicity, poor pedagogy, and assorted other wrongs, is my own personal therapy for my guilt at not having seen how warped and weird SWA was *before* enrolling my kids. That's despite having done more homework (beforehand) than almost anyone I've heard of.

And here is the reason for your insults: Because Waldorf education is warped and weird and detrimental to your children's health, every anthroposophist carries the same virus, infecting his or her environment. In addition, capacity for the rational logical thinking, i.e. intelligence, is significantly lower in the anthroposophist than in the average citizen, because of the brain-destructive effect of irrationality and munbo jumbo.

You want to make fun of that, Tarjei?

Not rationally.

<snip>

You'd love to believe I am hateful and bitter and twisted. Well, I am angry, still, and will be until I finish my work; I am a little bit bitter, but that's going away as my children heal. What you see here on the list is just the cynicism of age and the dread of a coming world where cults like Anthroposophy might become as dangerous as Scientology and Aum Shinrikyu.

From the looks of it, it apparently has become that dangerous already. Otherwise, your children would not need to be healed, or cured, from their exposure to it.

At the moment I think Anthroposophy is pretty benign -- though the tales of Bob Jones in Wisconsin are a bit hair-raising. But who knows what it could become? Especially if it gets a foothold in public schools?

Time will tell. We can only wait and shudder.

Tarjei

Tarjei Straume

Greetings from Uncle Taz

http://www.uncletaz.com/

Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "MICHAEL RONALL"
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 19:20:02 -0400

Michael Kopp writes:

what happened to me, my wife, and my kids IS something very like gang rape -- a sort of psychological (can't be spiritual, as none of us believe in spiritualism) and personal violation

Hi, Michael! MRx (yet) again.

In light of the above, I'm now even more interested to learn, as I've written you twice:

the standards by which you evaluate (say) said teacher's [one of MKOPP"s children's Waldorf teachers] being [snip] corrupt spiritually (for teaching this mumbo jumbo).

Because:

Since you offer as grounds for impunging the spiritual purity of this person his teaching this mumbo jumbo, I would ask you for signs by which we can recognize such spiritual purity whose privation you decry (as opposed to the corruption you detect), and what exactly you mean by mumbo-jumbo.

Faithfully, MRx

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:57:57 -0400

Michael Kopp says:

Well, I am angry, still, and will be until I finish my work;

When will your work be finished; how will you know it is done?

Robert Flannery
New York

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 16:47:26 +0200

Dan Dugan wrote (to Lisa about Rudolf Steiner's works):

To me, he says so much nonsense that it isn't worth the trouble studying him for the things that may be right.

In other words, you just scan around looking for something you can laugh at or scorn out of context, ignoring the rest - especially if there is obvious truth in it. And that's what you call a rational, objective, and balanced approach?

Tarjei Straume

Greetings from Uncle Taz

http://www.uncletaz.com/

Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism, Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality, death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 06:53:15 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp

Maybe *I'm* the one in need of deprogramming -- except that I never did believe any of their mumbo jumbo, which was the reason there was strife and an eventual divorce.

Now you're blaming a divorce on your Waldorf experience? This is really beyond words at this point.

I am a little bit bitter,

That's the first time I've hear Michael Kopp understate something.

Bob Tolz

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Kopp
Subject: RE: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 01:01:30 +1200

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp

Maybe *I'm* the one in need of deprogramming -- except that I never did believe any of their mumbo jumbo, which was the reason there was strife and an eventual divorce.

Now you're blaming a divorce on your Waldorf experience? This is really beyond words at this point.

I am a little bit bitter,

That's the first time I've hear Michael Kopp understate something.

Bob Tolz

Oh, go on, you big left-brained lawyer, you.

There's no mention of my wife in the sentence about Steiner, mumbo jumbo and strife. Most literate readers would know that I was not referring to someone not in evidence -- not in evidence, get it Bob?

The divorce was from the Steiner school, not from my wife! (Though she's probably thought many times about a real divorce after seeing the crap I've had to take from folks like you, Bob. She thinks I must be crazy to put up with it.)

Tolz, never one to miss a pot-shot, thinks he's a better psychiatrist now than he is a lawyer.

How about a divorce from you, Bob? Can we make it no-fault? Or are you going to bicker over who inflicted more psychological damage or whom?

Cheers from Godzone,

Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:20:47 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp

Now you're blaming a divorce on your Waldorf experience? This is really beyond words at this point.

I am a little bit bitter,

That's the first time I've hear Michael Kopp understate something.

Bob Tolz

Oh, go on, you big left-brained lawyer, you.

There's no mention of my wife in the sentence about Steiner, mumbo jumbo and strife.

Nor did *I* mention your wife.

How about a divorce from you, Bob? Can we make it no-fault? Or are you going to bicker over who inflicted more psychological damage or whom?

I'll let you keep the dog.

Bob Tolz

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:56:41 +1200

Michael Kopp says:

Well, I am angry, still, and will be until I finish my work;

When will your work be finished; how will you know it is done?

Robert Flannery
New York

The answer to both questions is: when I stop being angry.

Cheers from Godzone,

Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ... (counter evidence)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 18:25:11 -0700

I am forwarding this message written by Michael Shermer, publisher of the Skeptics Magazine. It describes a recent article in Lancet, the British medical journal reporting counter evidence to the prayer "study" of doctor Larry Dossey.

-- Daniel Sabsay

--------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------------------

Faith-Medicine Connection Challenged

The British medical journal Lancet, has published an important review article that calls into question the so-called Faith-Medicine connection (prayer and healing, faith and healing, spirituality and healing, religion and healing, etc.). Here is a short summary I wrote up for Skeptic magazine News for our next issue, but definitely check out the article yourself. It will be a keeper.

Studies over the past several years have reported that people who believe in God, who are religious, who pray, or who hold strong "spiritual" affinities, have lower blood pressure, recover from diseases and surgery faster, have greater longevity, and in general show many indicators of superior general health. In other words, spiritual health equals physical health. Skeptics have responded that the effect is most likely due to psychological reasons such as the placebo effect and self-fulling prophecies, or social psychological reasons, such as family support and encouragement to take needed medications, lead a healthier life style ("no, no honey, the doctor said you can't have the extra rich Ben and Jerry's ice cream"), etc.

A study published in the February 20, 1999 issue of The Lancet (Vol. 353: 664-667) calls all of this into question and challenges the original studies themselves. The authors, Richard Sloan, E. Bagiella, and T. Powell, all from Columbia University, present a comprehensive examination of the empirical evidence and ethical issues involved in claims for a religion-medicine connection. The authors begin by noting that 79% of Americans report they believe that spiritual faith can aid recovery, 63% believe physicians should talk to their patients about spiritual faith, 48% want their doctors to pray with them, and 25% reported using prayer as part of their therapy. Nearly 30 U.S. medical schools offer courses on religion, spirituality, and health. Of 296 physicians at a meeting of the American Academy of Family Physicians, 99% said they believe religious beliefs aid healing, and a remarkable 75% reported that they believe that prayer by one person can actually help someone else recover from an illness. But the authors point out a number of methodological problems:

1. Lack of control of intervening variables. Many of these studies failed to control for such intervening variables as age, sex, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, marital status, and degree of religiosity or religious devotion. Furthermore, the studies do not take into account that most religions have sanctions against behaviors injurious to health, such as smoking, alcohol and drug use, excessive promiscuous sexual activity, and diet. The authors noted that when such variables are controlled for in these studies, the formerly significant results drop off to insignificance. In one study, for example, recovery from hip surgery in elderly women failed to control for age. In another study, church attendance and recovery did not take into account the fact that people in poorer health were less likely to attend church, and thus there was a selection bias. In yet another study on lowering blood pressure through prayer and attending religious services, levels of exercise and physical activity were not taken into account.

2. Failure to control for multiple comparisons. "Many studies on religion and health fail to make an adjustment for the greater likelihood of finding a statistically significant result when conducting multiple statistical tests. For example, one study reported that religious attendance was inversely associated with high concentrations of interleukin-6 in the elderly. However, interleukin-6 was one of eight outcome variables and there was no attempt to control for multiple comparisons." In other words, report the hits, dismiss the misses. In one of the most highly publicized double-blind studies of patients in a coronary-care unit who were prayed for by born-again Christians, 29 outcome variables were measured but on only six did the prayer group show improvement. "However, the six significant outcomes were not independent: the prayer group had fewer cases of newly diagnosed heart failure and of new prescribed diuretics and fewer cases of newly diagnosed pneumonia and of new prescribed antibiotics. There was no control for multiple comparisons, a fact recognized by the author." Furthermore, how do you prevent the "non-prayer" group from being prayed for by friends and family? Since these were real patients in a real CCU in real critical condition, wouldn't their friends and family members pray for them?

3. Conflicting findings. In some studies a number of religiosity variables were used but only those with a significant correlation were reported. Meanwhile, other studies using the same religiosity variables found different correlations and, of course, only reported those. "Moreover, when the entire scale was used, the relation between religion and mortality failed to reach significance."

The authors also point out that most studies did not provide definitions of religious and spiritual variables, nor of outcome variables. "The absence of specific definitions of religious and spiritual activity is an important problem, since many of the studies to which we refer define these activities differently." Sloan, Bagiella, and Powell conclude: "Even in the best studies, the evidence of an association between religion, spirituality, and health is weak and inconsistent. We believe therefore that it is premature to promote faith and religion as adjunctive medical treatments."

--------- End Forwarded Message ----------------

This was another edition of SkepticMag Hotline, the internet edition of Skeptic magazine, and the cyberspace voice of the Skeptics Society. To subscribe, send an e-mail to: join-skeptics@lyris.net

For further information about the magazine and society, visit our website
at http://www.skeptic.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org

mail@eb-skeptics.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

 

The Uncle Taz "WC Posts"

Tarjei's "WC files"

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind