The history of the Ice Bucket Challenge

Originally, the ice bucket challenge was not associated with ALS.

Before it all went viral, I saw a number of my capoeirista friends taking part, and the challenge was a little different, have two buckets of iced water poured on you, then pour the third one on yourself (here's my capoeira teacher, Mestrando Primo taking part, just before it went viral). 

The idea for the challenge was to either take the challenge, or donate to charity (or both), and to pick a charity of your choice, and also nominate three more to take part. Now some would say this isn't the nicest of fundraising tactics, and that it amounts to bullying fundraising tactics, but I think it's not that bad (and certainly better than "trick or treat" at Hallowe'en which is essentially demanding money with menaces), Anyhow...

Facebook data indicates that the challenge started around June 8th, but it wasn't until August that it really went viral. Golfer Chris Kennedy nominated the ALS foundation, and this is where the association with ALS (aka Motor Neuron Disease, or Lou Gehrig's disease).

As with many charity things, some people have been critical of how ALS Foundation spend their funds, for example, they have $6.7 million in investments. What people often fail to realise is that charities need to have money in reserve - fundraising isn't always predictable, and if the fundraising dries up, you need to have your operating costs to carry on the services you provide. I've defended charity spending before, but it bears repeating: charities don't get anything for free, and if you want to have a professional bunch of people working for you, you will have to pay them, as everyone has bills to pay and needs food to eat.

The ALS Foundation are quite open about their spending, and in the UK you can go to the charity commission and look at the accounts of all charities. It is then up to you to see if you think a charity spends too much on its staff etc relative to how much the charity brings in. In the case of ALS, 21% being spend on fundraising and admin seems more than acceptable.

Any how, here's my ice bucket challenge:

Thanks JustGiving

So, JustGiving are yet again receiving criticism for their charging of fees for their online fundraising service they provide to charities. Unfortunately, the criticism is both untrue and unfair.

When I worked for the Meningitis Trust, some people would also give similar criticism to me "Don't you feel bad taking money from the charity". My answer was "No", because much like everybody else I like to have money to buy food, pay rent, and all the rest. It would be lovely if everyone of independent means volunteered their time for the charity sector, but this isn't going to happen, and so there are expenses that need paying.

Likewise, setting up a service like JustGiving costs - you need hardware like servers; people to produce the software itself; and then a team of people to deliver this service to the various charities. JustGiving are wonderfully transparent about the fees they charge, and another good thing about them is that their surplus is put right back into improving the service it provides.

It's true that there are other, cheaper, online fundraising services, but they follow where JustGiving lead. JustGiving are the ones that invest in developing new services, like JustTextGiving, that make it better for everyone, and provide things for the other service providers to imitate.

Without JustGiving, Stephen Sutton would not have been in a position to raise the fantastic sum that he did, and gather the publicity that he did.

In my own time I've raised over £60,000 for various charities over the last 10ish years, not all of it online, but without JustGiving I wouldn't have made nearly as much. Case in point, over Easter I was in London for the Meningitis Research Foundation, shaking a bucket for loose change. JustGiving let me have a virtual bucket for those friends of mine that couldn't drop anything in to my real one, and that was an extra £161 for the charity. Charities raise more with JustGiving than they would without, and JustGiving are well worth their fees because of this.

Full disclosure: I won, with my good friend Simon, the Most Innovative Fundraiser Award at the first Justgiving Awards in 2010, and have also had donations from Justgiving made to various fundraising pages I have had over the years. This only serves to back up my arguments - not only are they deeply passionate about helping the charities they serve, but they have a vested interest in the individual fundraisers too.

*cough* http://www.justgiving.com/whatonlythree *cough*

Live Below the Line

1.2 Billion people, that's a sixth of the world population, have to get by on just £1 a day their most basic needs - food, clean water, shelter, education, health, everything.

Live Below the Line is challenging individuals and communities to eat and drink on just £1 per day for 5 days, to bring to life the experiences of the 1.2 billion people currently living in extreme poverty. Think about that figure - 1.2 BILLION - that's nearly 20 times the population of the UK - living every day in extreme poverty.

​

Participants chose to take the challenge and fundraise for one of our 35 charity partners whose work is vital to ending extreme poverty.  

One such participant is my lovely friend Kate, who is says:

"Last year I successfully managed to complete this challenge, but it was a challenge. This year I am eating more food, drinking more chocolate and I have less time to plan and prepare meals. I am genuinely wondering how it is going to be possible to manage on £1 a day. 

I expect to be grumpy and hungry, but at least I can make up for it at the weekend. The reason this challenge is so important to me is becuase of the huge number of people around the world and in the uk who have no choice but to watch every penny they spend. As a mother it particularly hits me that there are parents who choose to miss meals so they can feed their children, some of them within 5 miles of where I work in London.

If you aren't taking part in the challenge please think about how much money you spend over the 5 days and the luxury you have of eating foods you enjoy rather than what you can afford to survive. It would be great if you could donate some money (my chosen charity is Save the Children), but it's more important for me to raise awareness. "

Well, that's a bit more awareness raised, but long time readers will know I'm big on the old fundraising, so if you can, why not pop by her page (or one of the many others), and donate at least £1 - for 1.2 billion people, that would be all they could possibly give today.

Defending £100k charity salaries

William Shawcross, the chairman of the Charity Commission (which regulates charities in the UK), has today come out and criticised executives in large charities earning £100,000.

This to me seems a foolish criticism.

But, before I address that, lets deal with a few of the criticisms I often see in discussions about charities.

"I refuse to donate money to charities that cant guarantee that 100% of my donation will arrives at its destination."

No charity can do that unless it's entirely run by volunteers for a start. This isn't easy to do, because those volunteers will still need to eat and have a roof over their heads. This is all well and good if they have someone else who can pay those things for them, which means they will have lots of time. But for those that don't, this means their time must fit around their job.

Even for a charity like the Samaritans, whose centres are run by volunteers, they still have to have wages for central office staff who help to run the charity nationally.

When I worked for the Meningitis Trust, I did, on a few occasions, have to defend my wage to some people I met (though this wasn't as I was working for them, more conversations in a pub kinda thing). They (initially) couldn't understand that for me to work nine to five, five days a week for the charity, I would need some form of remuneration.

It's great if a charity can be run without any staff costs, but, even if that is the case, there will still be other costs. If the charity wants an office, and not just someone's kitchen table, then that office space needs paying for etc. etc.

"I no longer donate to the big name charities who already get the lion's share of money via their ability to pay for big campaigns and advertising which keeps their cause visible. I also dislike paying fat salaries for those at the top of these organisations.

Donate to the smaller charities who are crying out for funding - much more satisfying."

Why is charitable spending on ads bad? Take Macmillan's ads - they let people know about the services avaialble to you, should you be affected by cancer. Likewise, if a charity spend £10 direct on a cause, great. But what if that £10 went on advertising, and generated £50 to go to the cause. Surely that's a better thing? Again, ads from charities aren't bad in and of themselves. It all depends on the individual ad campaign. Some charities run ads. Get over it.

"One very good thing to come out of this report is the fact that people are waking up to the fact that big charities have become a cash cow to some rich bosses who do not deserve it 
We all should support our local hospice, youth centre , and many other local support groups who are doing a fantastic job with little reward.
I would never ever give to any mainstream charity organisation again."

But what happens if your small charity becomes successful? Just as an easy example, the Meningitis Trust started with concerned parents around a kitchen table. Now it makes over £3 million a year to help in the fight against meningitis. Does this make them mainstream? They're a national charity, and the largest one in the country fighting meningitis.

As for hospices, my local hospice, St Wilfrid's, makes over £6 million, and one of their employers earns over £110,000.

What is a mainstream charity?

People don't seem to realise the scale of charities and what's involved.

And this is why I dont give to big charaties, too much goes on admin and wages.

I now only give to small charities run by volunteers in my local area. At least that way you can be fairly confident that it will be spent on what you expect.

Let's take the cause of cancer. 1 in 3 of us will get cancer in our lifetimes. There are many causes of cancer (environmental, viral, genetic etc), and so if anything's going to get done, it will need to have a lot more money; to pay for the research, treatment, and care.

Cancer Research UK is the largest charity in the country, making over £492 million, and at least 80p of every pound donated goes on their work to beat cancer.

Compare this to KidsCan, a local Salford cancer research centre. It made £270,000 odd, but spends a much higher proportion on salaries etc.

Using Facebook/Twitter I asked for people to name the first cancer charity that came into their heads: Cancer Research UK, Marie Curie and Movember were the first three. They make £492M, £138M and £22M respectively. Not Lyndale Cancer Support for example, which makes £84k (or KidsCan, which many of my friends have fundraised for). In fact, so far, all charities named make over £10M.

People are more likely to give to these charities. If someone they know gets cancer, and they want to do something for a cancer charity, these large ones will likely be the first port of call. Consequently, people will more likely give them cash, and the more money you receive over and above your operating costs, the more efficient you are.

All charities are different - what they do, how they run, and where their money goes.

But if you want to, you can find these things out. Just simply go to the Charity Commission website - you can get a charity's latest accounts from there. You can always ask the charity your concerned about these things as well.

Something that seems to have escaped Priti Patel, a Conservative MP

“Hard-pressed taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent and will be shocked to see so many highly paid executives in charities that are dependent on public funds.
“This money should be focused on delivering frontline services rather than lining the pockets of unaccountable charity executives.
“As more public money is being given to charities to run services, they need to become more accountable to the public and subject to greater scrutiny and transparency.”

Charities have to pay people wages. They are competing with the private and public sectors - they have to have comparable wages, as most people aren't altruistic enough to earn well below their potential to help a charity. Working for a charity doesn't instantly make you a Saint. And, if one charity is paying their staff too much, that is the fault of the individual charity, not charities as a whole.

Most people might be shocked to see highly paid executives, but most people (judging by the comments above, and others at the BBC news article) don't seem to have a clue about how charities work.

In a time when money is tight, and donations to charities are down, Shawcross' comments are not helpful. People will be disinclined to give to charities if it is news to them that charity execs earn over £100k. Not that this is news though, as this information has been publicly available for years and years.

For those who this is news though:

Donating to charity does not mean you're just lining someone's pockets. True, part of your donation will go to staff wages - but don't forget those wages are being paid to individuals to help that charity operate and do its thing.

Don't let Shawcross and Patel put you off donating to a charity. I think charities are one of the best ways to help improve the world. Taxes are always going to be a finite pot which we have little say over once we have elected a Government it. I can't chose where my taxes go. But I can choose to help causes that matter to me through charity. And so can you.

Touch your boobies. Or don't. It's up to you

This video ended up in my Facebook feed courtesy of 9gag:

Whilst it's admirable to help to try and combat breast cancer, I'm not sure if this video helps.

Firstly, whilst it's big on talking about regularly checking breasts, there's little info on what to do if you find a lump, and whilst it asks "Do you know the warning signs?" it doesn't actually tell you what those signs might be.

Also, the lyric "Touching is key to being lumpy free" isn't true, and could be potentially damaging. Regularly checking your breasts won't change your chances of getting lumps. Not smoking; eating a healthy balanced diet; watching alcohol in take; staying a healthy weight; getting plenty of exercise; and, if you are able to, breastfeeding will.* However, those that do check regularly may be a bit more blasé about these risk factors, as they feel a bit safer, because of risk compensation.

As for checking your breasts, it's become a popular mantra, but just how effective is it? The US National Cancer Institute instigated a trial to find out.

The study took more than a quarter of a million women and divided them into two groups. One group was taught how to examine their breasts, and then reminded to do so monthly, as well as being medically supervised for their examinations every six months. The other acted as a control group, and they were not taught, or reminded to examine their breasts. At the end if the study there had been similar amounts of breast cancer diagnosed in each group and similar numbers of deaths from breast cancer. It showed that teaching and encouraging breast self examination didn't stop women dying from breast cancer.**

In fact, those that were doing the self examinations actually had more biopsies (which have risks of their own) for benign, non cancerous lumps than the control group. So self examination actually did more harm than good.

We all (hopefully) wash, bathe, shower, dress and in so doing, notice our bodies. Some of us our lucky enough to have partners that notice our bodies too! We tend to notice when something is wrong or has changed (though a difference between men and women is that men tend to take longer to go and see a doctor if they have spotted something wrong).

If you do spot something wrong or unusual, go and see a doctor. But don't feel guilty if you're not purposefully checking yourself every month.

I should add that I'm a big supporter of Breast Cancer Campaign and have fundraised for them a fair bit. You can check out their stats on breast cancer, and whilst you're over there, why not donate too?

Because, seriously, fuck cancer.



*To be honest, this advice is just generally good for a whole host of things! What? You already knew that? Excellent! Do you actually follow that advice though?

**This paragraph is almost taken whole sale from the excellent The Patient Paradox by Dr Margaret McCarthy, who we've met a couple of times before on this blog.

Thomas DB, Gao DL. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94(19):1445-1457 jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/19/1445.long

Baking with science

At school there's a Bake Off amongst the staff for Comic Relief (the results of which shall make up a cake sale). I have never baked  a cake. But how hard can it be? After all, I'm a science teacher, and baking is science for hungry people.

 So, armed with Chapter 6 of Ben Miller's excellent "It's Not Rocket Science" in which he talks about the science of making a Victoria sponge, I shall do just that.

No crazy challenges of physical endurance this. No test runs, I shall enter the kitchen with my ingredients, the book, and my wits.

 So, if you fancy, do chip in a quid.

 Thanks!

Fifty Shades of Charity

I've not read Fifty Shades of Grey, but I was tempted, merely to see what the fuss is about, especially given Martin Robbins' review on twitter: “combines the literary skill of a Dan Brown novel with the erotic appeal of a Dan Brown novel”. (It should be known I wanted to watch Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus for similar reasons. It didn't disappoint, but then, my expectations were never that high).

As well as it's bad writing, through the magic of twitter I also found out the Fifty Shades is bad in its depiction of BDSM. The main protagonist makes rookie mistakes (for example he uses cable ties which can cause nerve damage, turns out soft, thick rope's what people use). On top of that the main character is depicted as being psychologically sick. However, to quote from the linked article:

"BDSM, played in a safe and consensual manner, is not proof of mental or physical illness, essential badness or emotional damage from trauma or abusive parenting, and that people cannot – and should not – be treated to cure it.

All the work that has been done to establish that BDSM is not a pathological symptom, but one of a wide range of normative human erotic interests, is in danger of being undermined by the success of Fifty Shades. Let's hope we do not return to the days when people were discriminated against – losing children, property, jobs – for their interest in BDSM."

However, time is precious, and I simply haven't had enough of it to read a book I'm otherwise not interested in. But part of me wishes I had now, as Clare Phillipson, director of Wearside Women in Need, a charity for victims of domestic violence, sees the book as about"...a domestic violence perpetrator, taking someone who is less powerful, inexperienced, not entirely confident about the area of life she is being led into, and then spinning her a yarn. Then he starts doing absolutely horrific sexual things to her … He gradually moves her boundaries, normalising the violence against her. It's the whole mythology that women want to be hurt."

I would like to read the book and make up my own mind. The publisher says that all of the sex involved is consensual. Given it's the best selling book in British history, I would hope that it isn't popularising domestic violence.

Clare Phillipson has a right to voice her objections, but she is also objecting to library funds being used to pay for copies of the book. This is where she is crossing a line - the libraries are buying the books to meet demand (which I think is a good thing, it shows the libraries are getting used). By all means voice concerns, but don't stop other people reading the material.


She's also calling for a public book burning. This strikes me as plain daft - people would have to buy the book so as to own a copy to burn. This only helps the popularity and sales of Fifty Shades of Grey. On top of that, what good does book burning do? A better idea would be for her to encourage people who would otherwise have bought the book to get it from the library, and donate the difference to Wearside Women in Need. Because domestic violence is an issue that needs to be stopped, and funds help that. They're not on JustGiving, but if you like that idea, donate to Refuge instead (yes, I know men are victims of domestic abuse too, but Clare's raising awareness for a charity for women, and I want to match the cause as closely as possible).

http://www.justgiving.com/fiftyshadesofcharity

Hell, even if you don't like the idea of burning books, just chuck in two quid any way. (If you're in the UK just text "BURN50 £2" to 70070).


If people want to experiment with BDSM, or anything else, so long as everyone involved is consenting and nobody comes to any harm, that's ok. But book burning just strikes me as perverse.

Myths about suicide

Tony Scott's death by suicide is tragic and brings attention to an often misunderstood cause of death.

I believe that everyone has the right to choose to take their own life but I'd much prefer that this did not happen - after all, someone wanting to take their life on one day and be ready to do so, may not be so inclined the next day. Completing suicide is final.

Reports of suicide in the media can influence suicide rates, and the Samaritans movement has press guidelines for the reporting of suicide in the pres. For example:

1. Avoid explicit or technical details of suicide in reports.

Providing details of the mechanism and procedure used to carry out a suicide may lead to the imitation of suicidal behaviour by other people at risk.

For example, reference can be given to an overdose but not reference to the specific type and number of tablets used. Similarly, saying someone "hanged themselves" is better than saying they "hanged themselves using their own school shirt from their bedroom door".

Particular care should be taken in specifying the type and number of tablets used in an overdose and material / method used in hanging and ligatures. In retrospective reporting or reconstructions, actual depiction of means should be avoided, for example showing the drawing of blood in self-harm. Use of a long shot or a cutaway is better.

However, a cursory look at various newspaper websites doesn't make it hard to find out how, where, when etc. that Tony Scott completed suicide. Sadly, irresponsible reporting of suicide is nothing new - Ben Goldacre wrote an article about it in 2009, and this isn't the first case this year of poor reporting. You must read Ben Goldacre's piece from 2009.
If you see irresponsible reporting of suicide in the press, do take the time to complain to the Press Complaints Commission, or directly to the news source its self - if they don't have the humanity to do this for themselves, then something needs to be done.

In the meantime, I'm reproducing the Samaritans Media Myths on suicide:

MYTH: You have to be mentally ill to think about suicide.
FACT: Most people have thought of suicide from time to time and not all people who die by suicide have mental health problems at the time of death. The majority of people who kill themselves do have such problems, typically to a serious degree and often undiagnosed, but feelings of desperation and hopelessness are more accurate predictors of suicide.

MYTH: People who talk about suicide aren’t really serious and are not likely to actually kill themselves.
FACT: People who kill themselves have often told someone that they do not feel life is worth living or that they have no future. Some may have actually said they want to die. People may talk about suicide as a way of getting the attention they need, but it is very important that everyone who says they feel suicidal is treated seriously.

MYTH: Once a person has made a serious suicide attempt, that person is unlikely to make another.
FACT: Those who have attempted suicide once are 100 times more likely than the general population to do so again. Around four out of ten people who die by suicide will have attempted suicide previously.

MYTH: If a person is serious about killing themselves then there is nothing you can do.
FACT: Feeling suicidal is often a temporary state of mind. Whilst someone may feel low or distressed for a sustained period the actual suicidal crisis can be relatively short term. Offering appropriate and timely help and emotional support to people who areexperiencing deep unhappiness and distress can reduce the risk ofthem dying by suicide.

MYTH: Talking about suicide is a bad idea as it may give someone the idea to try it.
FACT: When someone feels suicidal they often do not want to worry or frighten others and so do not talk about the way they feel. By asking directly about suicide you give them permission to tell you how they feel. People who have been through such a crisis will often say that it was a huge relief to be able to talk about their suicidal thoughts. Once someone starts talking and exploring their feelings and worst fears they have a greater chance of discovering options other than suicide.

MYTH: Most suicides happen in the winter months.
FACT: Suicide is more common in the spring and summer months.

MYTH: People who threaten suicide are just seeking attention and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
FACT: People may well talk about their feelings because they want support in dealing with them. The response of those close to a person who has attempted suicide can be important to their recovery and giving them the attention they need may save their life. An attempted suicide should always be taken seriously.

MYTH: People who are suicidal want to die.
FACT: The majority of people who feel suicidal do not actually want to die but they do not want to live the life they have. Offering emotional support and talking through other options can help people come through a suicidal crisis and make the difference between them choosing to live and deciding to die.

MYTH: Women are more likely to kill themselves.
FACT: More women say they have considered suicide but far more men than women die by suicide every year.

For references and more info, visit the Samaritans Media Centre.

Samaritans is available for anyone in any type of distress on 08457 90 90 90 in the UK or 1850 60 90 90 in the Republic of Ireland or by email at jo@samaritans.org



UPDATE: Changed the Samaritans links, as they updated their website. I have not checked that the myths I've reproduced are the same as those on their new website.

Piers Morgan, Bradley Wiggins and Colm Quinn

If Piers Morgan has any redeeming features, I am yet to discover them. From what I have seen on the media he comes across as a thoroughly nasty man. Recently, he has taken to twitter to attack Team GB's gold medal winners that don't sing the national anthem.

As well as this, he is also attempting to guilt trip future athletes, by donating £1,000 to Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity for every athlete that sings the national anthem, the message being: Don't sing the anthem, and GOSH have missed out on a thousand pounds you unBritish heartless monsters. It's easy to make gestures like this when you're worth (in financial terms) $20 million, but at least Great Ormond Street are benefiting from his mean spiritedness.

In response to this one quick witted chap posted this:

This tweet got some RTs and has now been falsely attributed to Bradley Wiggins.

Who knows why an athlete doesn't choose to sing the anthem? Does it matter if they don't? It's a personal choice, and should be left that way.

Certainly, Piers Morgan, one of Britain's worst exports, shouldn't get to define what patriotism and national pride mean.

Someone's set up a JustGiving page for Great Ormond Street in response too.

Germ Theory, the debate today

Given that the National Trust tells us that the age of the Giant's Causeway is still being debated to this day, here's another debate that 's still raging.

Germ Theory - The Debate Today. 

Like many natural phenomena around the world, diseases have raised questions and prompted debate about how they are caused, why people get them, and how to treat them. 

This debate has ebbed and flowed since the discovery of pathogenic bacteria, viruses and antibiotics, and historically, has been part of a global debate about how to deal with people who are sick. 

This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of disease which is different from that of most school children. 

Christian Scientists believe that  "false beliefs are the procuring cause of all sin and disease" and that if you pray hard enough, you can cure any disease.  This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and the book Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures by Mrs Eddy. Some people around the world, share this perspective.  

Christian Scientists continue to debate questions about the cause and treatment of disease. As we have seen from the past, and understand today, perhaps sickness will continue to arouse debate and prompt challenging questions for as long as people get ill.

Perhaps the National Trust should put such info up in Claydon House, with their information on Florence Nightingale? Surely this would be as fair, proportionate and entirely scientific as the Giant's Causeway.

More charity and woo: The National Trust and Creationism

As well as the Multiple Sclerosis Resource Centre promoting pseudoscientific nonsense, we now have the National Trust promoting creationism.

A transcript from an audio exhibit at the Giants Causeway:

"Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created some 6000 years ago. This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and in particular the account of creation in the book of Genesis. Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective. 

Young Earth Creationists continue to debate questions about the age of the earth. As we have seen from the past, and understand today, perhaps the Giant’s Causeway will continue to prompt awe and wonder, and arouse debate and challenging questions for as long as visitors come to see it."

The National Trust have responded to the criticism saying:

“We reflect, in a small part of the exhibition, that the Causeway played a role in the historic debate about the formation of the earth, and that for some people this debate continues today. 

“The National Trust fully supports the scientific explanation for the creation of the stones 60 million years ago. 

“We would encourage people to come along, view the interpretation and judge for themselves.” 

The Caleb Foundation, which promotes "the Fundamentals of the Historic Evangelical Protestant Faith" issued a statement from their chairman, Wallace Thompson, which highlights the problem in the National Trust:

"As an umbrella organisation which represents the interests of mainstream evangelical Christians in Northern Ireland, we have worked closely with the National Trust over many months with a view to ensuring that the new Causeway Visitor Centre includes an acknowledgement both of the legitimacy of the creationist position on the origins of the unique Causeway stones and of the ongoing debate around this. 

"We are pleased that the National Trust worked positively with us and that this has now been included at the new Visitor Centre."

The problem is that the Young Earth Creationist view has been seen to be given legitimacy, when there is none. There is no debate about the age of the Giant's Causeway. The Young Earth Creationists may debate it to this day, but they do so by being woefully ignorant of the evidence, or, by simply rejecting the evidence that there is, in a favour of the Bible. But their view has no merit. All ideas are not of equal worth. As Douglas Adams said:

"Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes.

Young Earth Creationist ideas have not withstood their assualt and can be rejected. The Young Earth Creationists may, through ignorance or stupidity, wish to cling to their ideas, but the rest of us can reject them. And that should include the National Trust.

In the words of Han Solo...

"Great kid! Don't get cocky!"

Some great news came out today: A vaccine for the most common strain of meningitis causing bacteria in the UK (meningococcal group B) came a step closer today following a study published in The Lancet, the results of which were promising enough for the Joint Committee on Vaccine and Immunisation (JCVI) to consider the vaccine for introduction in the UK.

This is *wonderful* news, don't get me wrong, but the Han Solo reference relates to a potential bad side to this announcement, exemplified by this quote from the Telegraph:

"Meningitis B is the last remaining form of the disease that occurs in Britain for which there is no vaccine."

This sadly isn't true. Viral meningitis can be caused by a great many viruses. Some of these, for example mumps virus, have vaccines. But many do not. There is also fungal meningitis, which is considerably rarer (tending to affect those with compromised immune systems).

Even with a men B vaccine, there will still be thousands of cases of meningitis a year. The faster meningitis is treated, the more likely you'll get through it (by not dying), and without brain damage, a missing limb, or some other nasty after effect. So, let's celebrate this news, but remember the signs and symptoms of meningitis, because it's never going to be entirely eradicated.

Thank you for reading this far, really, please do go and check up on the signs and symptoms of meningitis. That link could literally save your life.

Charities and woo

Regular readers will know that as well as being all skeptical, another one of my "things" is helping charities*. Alas, I was thus concerned when a friend alerted me to this in the MSRC newsletter:


Homeopathy

Homeopathy is based on the principle that ‘like cures like’. Highly diluted substances are used, usually in tablet form or drops. The Homeopath will ask a number of very detailed questions to make up a concise case history of you. This will look at the whole person, including personality, temperament, state of mind and lifestyle, before choosing remedies tailor-made to the individual.

Substances are taken which trigger the body’s healing mechanisms. A past condition can resurface and manifest itself in a mild form for a short time. Some substances would be quite poisonous in their undiluted state but they are so dilute that they cannot be detected in the normal way. They are thought to work through cellular memory at a vibrational level.

In MS, Homeopathy may help lessen fatigue, increase energy, warm up cold extremities and help to detoxify the body.

To find out more about Homeopathy or to find your nearest practitioner please click below:

[ The Society Of Homeopaths ]

Rather coincidently, this story cropped up in Third Sector news today as well:

Health charity criticised by Advertising Standards Authority

Regulator tells the Maperton Trust to stop claiming that a £19 badge will repel head lice

The holistic health charity the Maperton Trust has been reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Authority for claiming a badge with a picture of a unicorn on it could repel head lice.

I've mentioned before about how it's sometimes possible to promote religion by accident: when a religious charity doesn't make it obvious that one of their main goals in the promotion of a religion when they set up an appeal. It certainly looks like the same can happen with quack treatments - whilst the Merton Trust may be quite explicit for their support of things that don't work, well, unless you follow this reasoning to get your evidence:

While conventional medicines concentrate on the physical structures and functions, alternative and complementary medicine is holistic in nature considering optimum health as a balance in the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual states. This difference makes comparing conventional with non conventional systems of health care extremely difficult. We feel that comparing the satisfaction of the receivers of health care offers a way forward and our trials were based on what the patient said their problems were and what they thought after treatment.

Other health charities it appears will support quack remedies too. I must confess, that when I look at a charity to see if I want to give my time or money to it, I won't search for quackery, but now I will. MRSC for example has a page for especially for woo. This disappoints me.

So the lesson I have learnt today, and hope to pass on to you is that, if you don't want to promote bogus treatments, search for them on a charity's web page first, just to make sure. Charities may well be doing good, but there are lots of charities around, and if I want to give my time and money, I want it to go to charities that will make the most of it, and don't waste their time with rubbish.

Thankfully, the excellent charity Sense About Science, and the newly formed (but not a charity as far as I know) Nightingale Collaboration are on hand to help fight the good fight against nonsense, and I would encourage you to support them.

*the main reason I'm big into helping charities is that, quite idealistically, I feel they are one of the best ways to help make a positive difference in the world. For example, I have no medical training, but can help fight diseases like meningitis, by running a marathon etc.

On Druidry being officially recognised as a religion in the UK

As you might have read at WEIT, Derren Brown and the Godless Geek, the Druid Network is now a registered charity, and, as such, is the first Pagan practice to officially be regarded as a religion.

It is just the Druid Network that is a charity, and as the Charity Commission say "The form of druidry that is practised by the Druid Network fulfils the four criteria for a religion in charity law and therefore is a religion. However, that isn’t to say that every form of druidry would meet those four criteria."

This is a fair decision – all religions, or spiritual practices, should be charities if they meet the requirements of the law. It’s not fair to exclude less well known, or slightly more minority practices just because they are less popular, or their practices not understood.

The Charity Commission concluded on 21 September that the Druid Network was "established for exclusively charitable purposes for the advancement of religion for the public benefit". You can read the full report. This is a good decision with in the law.

My main issue is the “advancement of religion for the public benefit". Does religion provide a public benefit? I think not, at least not on its own. Druids may, for example, champion conservation causes because of their faith, but, is religious faith really needed here? If people do need faith in a religion to do good, then that is very sad, but I don't think that this is the case.

This seems a good time to high light the British Humanist Association's Charity Law Campaign:

Charity law
The law on charity dates back to 1601, with court decisions on whether an organisation is eligible for the legal and tax privileges of charity status resting on analogies with the types of activity listed in the preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses of that year. In the 19th century a judge categorised charities into four categories (relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion – and the rest!).

In 2005, the Government produced in its Charities Bill a new 13-fold categorisation, with the last still a catch-all “other purposes” group. Over five years of consultations, correspondence and meetings we had argued without success that the heading “advancement of religion” should be extended, in line with the Human Rights Act, to encompass advancement of non-religious beliefs such as Humanism. At present humanist organisations can win charity status only by qualifying under some other head, such as education. Attempts to amend the Bill in Parliament were unsuccessful, and the Charities Act 2006 is now law.

The Act also extended to all charities, including religious ones, the need to be able to demonstrate that they produce “public benefit”. This concept is legally complex and the Charity Commission has been consulting on draft guidance on how it will be applied. We have made substantial submissions on this question and has had meetings at a high level with the Commission, but the resulting guidance remains unsatisfactory, both in seeming to relax the rigour of the law for religious charities and in its definition of what counts as a religion – a definition that anyway under the Human Rights Act should have no place in law. A recent draft of guidance on public benefit and charities based on non-religious beliefs is similar to but more restrictive than the guidance for religious charities and, anyway seems unwarranted given the law’s lack of recognition of such a category of charity. Our submissions and correspondence under this process are available in the Articles and Submissions section on this page.

What we want
Ultimately we want the new law amended to put humanist charities in the same legal position as religious ones.

We have maintained that the Charity Commission should heed the Human Rights Act and treat charities based on non-religious beliefs in the same way as religious ones. It has so far refused to do so but its intentions with the draft guidance about non-religious beliefs are still unclear. The consultation is now closed and we await the outcome.

If you want to help this, or indeed, any other advancements of humanism, then please do check out the British Humanist Association and its work.