Skepchick Quickies 3.3


Amanda works in healthcare, is a loudmouthed feminist, and proud supporter of the Oxford comma.

Related Articles


  1. If Kadyrov were a Islamic separatist then I wouldn’t be so surprised, but this man is backed by the Russian government and Vladimir Putin. Presumably, when George W. Bush “stared into Putin’s eyes and saw a good soul” he missed seeing the part of the soul where Putin supports a mass-murdering bastard like Ramzan Kadyrov. Consider me depressed too.

  2. I’m not sure that it’s that doctors ‘hate’ science. I think it may be due to the force of habit and fear of malpractice suits. If a doctor fears a lawsuit, he/she may just go with a set habitual response for each condition without reviewing the patient’s chart to see if there is a reason why it shouldn’t be done (such as Paps for women after hysterectomies).

    Another reason is that it might be a side effect of the reigning “for profit” motive in medicine today. The more tests and drugs, the more money. Doctors are human, too. Personally, I don’t think the for profit model is good fo rthe medical community, in spite of the fact that my wife works for a health insurance company.

    I do agree with her hypothesis that there are “fashions” in medicine for treatment and that there is a certain amount of “Me, too” involved.

  3. From the BUST article: I started going for anxiety, which acupuncture has really helped, and now whenever I go, we chat about how I’m feeling, what my body and mind are experiencing, and what I’d like to focus on that day.

    I would like to know what the author’s experience would be if she went to a session in which she lay on her stomach and talked about how she was feeling and what her body and mind were experiencing and what she wanted to focus on, but she did without the needles.

    I suspect that she would find that she was still relaxed afterward.

  4. So by representative douche bag’s logic he would approve of bullies beating the crap out of his children to teach him a lesson for voting against a bill that would save infants lives.

  5. Having read the AP article regarding the government condoned “honor killings” in Chechnya I feel that most frustrating of emotions: impotent rage.

  6. Re: Mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women:

    That’s a *great* idea. Next, let’s impose mandatory random alcohol screening for pregnant women. Then, we’ll mandate that they get all of their food and vitamins from a government approved source (to ensure pre-natal health of the fetus)… F#@k, the next thing to do is to make sure that “feeble” women are sterilised and can’t have babies.

    I have lost a lot of respect for Oskar Kennedy (LBB) for complaining about a proposed law that is a civil liberties nightmare. I am *skeptical* about the wisdom of ceding our rights to the government, no matter that some will use them badly.

  7. Re: “Why Doctors Hate Science” (comparative effectiveness research):

    WooWoo-er: Western” medicine doesn’t respect ancient secret wisdom.

    Skeptic: I think that you mean, ‘Evidence-based’ medicine, and in stead of unsupported common sense, it uses studies and evidence.

    WooWoo-er: But this article says that doctors don’t actually always use good scientific evidence…

    Skeptic: …Shit.

  8. @Finn McR: We can debate the wisdom of the legislation itself, but my major complaint is with the reasoning for the vote. If Rep. Schultheis had voted no because he felt the law was a threat to civil liberties, I might have disagreed with him – I think, for instance, that your slippery slope argument is unrealistic – but I wouldn’t have been outraged by that.

    But he didn’t object on civil liberties grounds; instead, he decided that AIDS is caused by promiscuity, and having an HIV positive baby is an appropriate punishment for that behavior. If you don’t see why that’s appalling and awful, then I’m not terribly concerned about losing your respect.

  9. @ Oskar: I re-read the post; saw that you did not support the proposed law, but rather opposed the *particular* reasoning that Rep. Schultheis used. I agree on the opposition to his reasoning. (But will stand by my froth-spewing opposition to the proposed legislation.)

  10. @ Oskar: Re: “Slippery Slope”

    I think that ‘slippery slope’ is code for ‘a possible future consequence that I don’t think will happen’. It is easy to be on either one of the wrong sides (skeptically), and I don’t claim to be a prophet on this issue. However, if you don’t think that some people want to/have tried to get any number of behaviors by pregnant women accepted as legal child abuse, then you need to read more. If you think that, e.g., a woman’s right to abortion would not eventually fall under that logic, fine. We will have to disagree.

  11. @ Oskar: … And finally, Re: Politicians and Grandstanding,

    I don’t know this guy, but I certainly don’t think much of most politicians (only respect them to the extent that I respect a used car salesman of whom, though they may be very good at their jobs, I think, “wow, they can get people to buy this crap.” If the Rep. voted against the measure in committee, but against it on the floor, perhaps he was playing to what he believes his constituents expect?? Again, I do not support his arguments; I sure as hell would not support him if he believed them (or even, as he did, used them, ’cause you just don’t know). However, I think that I can’t always tell when they are being performers, or people.

  12. @Finn McR: I haven’t read the bill itself but in the original article that I linked to, it states that health professionals will be required to test pregnant women for HIV *unless* they opt out.

  13. What the hell is BUST magazine? For what it is worth the majority of the comments after the argument are pleas to not fall for this non-science BS.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button