Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Bandolier reviews statins

In these pages contain stories from Bandolier relating to statins.

Probably the best review I've found on Statins: A 30-page (450 kb) essay on Statins

summarises what is here.

To choose which statin to use is here.

NHS National electron Library for Health - Hitting the Headlines Archive

Link source: Sense in Science

Sense about Science - What is Peer Review?

Chris Street edits in bold (partly) reposted from: Sense about Science - download pdf
"I don't know what to believe" - an article on Peer Review

SUMMARY
•Science has a system for assessing the quality of research before
it is published. This system is called peer review.
•Peer review means that other scientific experts in the field
check research papers for validity, significance and originality –
and for clarity.
•Editors of scientific journals draw on a large pool of suitable
experts to scrutinise papers before deciding whether to publish
them.
•Many of the research claims you read in newspapers and
magazines, find on the internet, or hear on television and the
radio are not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
•Some of this research may turn out to be good but much of it is
flawed or incomplete. Many reported findings, such as claims
about “wonder cures” and “new dangers”, never come to anything.
•Unpublished research is no help to anyone. Scientists can’t repeat
or use it and as a society we can’t base decisions about our public
safety – or our family’s health for example – on work that has a
high chance of being flawed.
•So, no matter how exciting or compelling new scientific or medical
research is, you must always ask…
Is it peer reviewed? If not, why not?
If it is peer reviewed, you can look for more information on what
other scientists say about it, the size and approach of the study and
whether it is part of a body of evidence pointing towards the same
conclusions.

HOW SHOULD YOU MAKE SENSE OF SCIENCE STORIES?
Peer review can help you make sense of science stories as it tells you that the
research has passed the scrutiny of other scientists and is considered valid,
significant and original.
Peer review means that statements made by scientists in scientific journals are
critically different from other kinds of statements or claims, such as those made by
politicians, newspaper columnists or campaign groups. Science is therefore more than
just another opinion.

A SHORT EXPLANATION OF PEER REVIEW
When a researcher, or team of researchers, finishes a stage of work, they usually write
a paper presenting their methods, findings and conclusions. They then send the paper
to a scientific journal to be considered for publication.
If the journal’s editor thinks it is suitable for their journal they send the paper
to other scientists who research and publish in the same field asking them to:
• Comment on its validity – are the research results credible;
are the design and methodology appropriate?
• Judge the significance - is it an important finding?
• Determine its originality - are the results new?
Does the paper refer properly to work done by others?
• Give an opinion as to whether the paper should be published,
improved or rejected (usually to be submitted elsewhere).
This process is called peer review. The scientists (peers)
assessing the papers are called referees or reviewers.

Scientists never draw firm conclusions from just one paper or set of results.
They consider the contribution it makes in the context of other work and their
own experience. It usually takes more than one research paper for results to be
seen as good evidence or accepted as a public truth.

THE SCIENCE PUBLISHING SCENE
For scientific knowledge to progress scientists need to share their research findings
with other scientists. The main way they do this is by publishing their research in
scientific journals – periodical publications intended to further the development of
science by reporting new research.
Journal editors receive many more papers than they can publish, so they use a twostep
selection process. First, they consider whether the paper is a ‘fit’ for their
journals. For example, some journals only publish research papers that are
groundbreaking; others only publish research in a specific area, such as microbiology.
If a journal editor decides that a paper is right for their journal, they send it for peer
review to check whether the research findings are valid, significant and original.

Did you know? There are around 21,000 scholarly and scientific journals that use the peer-review system. A high proportion of these are scientific, technical or medical journals, publishing over 1 million research papers each year.

You are most likely to hear about
new research from the daily news
media, where there is not space or
interest in full references. Good
journalists usually indicate whether
research has been published and
mention the name of the journal.

The more we ask, ‘is it peer
reviewed?’ the more obliged
reporters will be to include this
information.

There is no definitive list of peer reviewed
journals but you can look
up the names of selected peer reviewed
journals online at the
science news service EurekAlert!

SO SCIENTISTS USE PEER
REVIEW, SO WHAT?
When research findings have been peer
reviewed and published in a scientific
journal, this indicates that they are
sufficiently valid, significant and original
to merit the attention of other scientists.
Peer review is an essential dividing line
for judging what is scientific and what is
speculation and opinion. Most scientists
make a careful distinction between their
peer-reviewed findings and their more
general opinions.

Sounds good, but what happens
next?
Publication of a peer-reviewed paper is
just the first step: findings, and theories
about them, must go on to be re-tested
and judged against other work in the
same area. Some papers’ conclusions will
be disputed or further research will show
that they need to be revised as more data
are gathered.

SOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Sense About Science: To find out more about peer review you can visit the Sense About Science website where there is a section dedicated to it.

Association of Medical Research Charities: The AMRC has a page, for medical research charities, on the peer review of research grant applications:

Committee on Publication Ethics: COPE provides a sounding board for journal editors struggling with how to deal with breaches in research and publication ethics:

The National Electronic Library for Health: The NELH has a ‘Hitting the Headlines’ archive,
which looks at medical news stories and provides the research evidence on which they are
based

The Science Media Centre: The SMC has published a leaflet, Peer Review in a Nutshell, a guide for scientists preparing for a news interview.

Making Sense of Science Stories - “I don’t know what to believe…”

reposted from Sense in Science

“Is it peer reviewed?” is what Sense About Science is encouraging everyone to ask about science stories. Our short guide, written with input from patients, pharmacists and medical practitioners, among others, lets the public in on the arbiter of scientific quality: the peer review process.

Download the guide (pdf)
Order a copy

During the development of the guide we held workshops for people on the front line of dealing with public concerns, such as doctors and patient groups, and found that they are frustrated by the damage and public anxiety that result from the promotion of poor or unpublished science. Time is increasingly spent trying correct misleading claims found by members of the public on the Internet and elsewhere.

“I don’t know what to believe...” aims to change this by making more sectors of society familiar with what they should ask about research that worries or interests them. It equips people to inquire whether research has passed the scrutiny of other scientists and is considered valid, significant and original.

The guide is being distributed through a campaign involving healthcare providers, Internet sites, helplines and local bodies, based on the ways that people pursue their concerns and interest in particular scientific developments.

Comments on the guide

A guide to help patients

“Rarely a week passes without a ‘miracle heart drug’ or ‘heart scare’ headline appearing in the national media. This can sometimes offer false hope or be very frightening for vulnerable heart patients. We welcome resources like this leaflet, which can help people to read between the lines of newspaper print.”
Jane Shepley, British Heart Foundation

“Whenever there is a story about Alzheimer’s disease in the news the Alzheimer’s Society’s helpline receives calls from people concerned about what they have read. We support anything that helps the general public to understand the health messages they see everyday and encourages people to question the headlines that they read in the popular press. As there is currently no cure for dementia it is disconcerting and disturbing for people with dementia and their families when the results of research are overplayed in the media.”
Joe Crosbie, Alzheimer’s Society

“We encourage initiatives that help the public reach informed judgements about the medical research stories they see and hear in the media. People suffering disease and disability want hope, but not false hope. Action Medical Research aims to have all its work peer reviewed, as a means of ensuring the findings are reported as fully and accurately as possible.”
Andrew Proctor, Action Medical Research

A valuable aid for pharmacists

“Pharmacists are often consulted for their knowledge about medicines and diseases. In their daily work, they often have concerned people asking them about health issues and the latest “miracle cures” featured in the media. This leaflet is a really valuable tool to help pharmacists set these claims into context and explain the role of sound science in making advances in health care.”
John Clements, Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Scientists should be more open about peer review

“Peer review is fundamental to scientific and scholarly communication. But it is also its best-kept secret: outside the scientific community, very few people know what it means or how it works. Sense About Science’s initiative is important because, for the first time, it will help the public to understand the unique character of the scientific process, to ask the right questions of scientists and to engage them with confidence.”
Michael Mabe, Elsevier

Peer review can help the public decide which scientific stories to take seriously

“Sense About Science’s leaflet, ‘I don’t know what to believe …’, will go a long way towards helping the public understand how scientific research is evaluated, and the important role peer review plays in this. By increasing awareness of peer review it will help people decide which scientific stories to take seriously and which to view with caution. When confronted with contradictory or far-reaching claims that may impact their own lives, they will know the questions they need to ask to sift out what is fact from what is just opinion or speculation.”
Dr Irene Hames, Managing Editor of The Plant Journal and author of Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals

A helpful guide for communicating about medical research

“The MRC is pleased to support this guide which is an interesting and useful addition to communicating about medical research.”
Elizabeth Mitchell, MRC

Click here for more comments on the guide and about peer review in general.

Download the guide (pdf, 221 kb)
Order a copy

God is Imaginary - Proof #11 - Notice that there is no scientific evidence

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.

None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page)

God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.

The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page)

The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)

When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page)

Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.

And so on…

Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.

If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.

The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary. <<<> | Home | Go to Proof #12 >>> Understanding the Rationalizations

The most common rationalization for the lack of scientific evidence is the "God must remain hidden" argument. See this proof for details.

Many believers try to rationalize God's existence by saying something like this: "The existence of the universe proves God's existence. Something had to create the universe. Science has no explanation for the universe's creation. Therefore, God created it."

The way to understand that this is a rationalization is to look back in history. Ancient people, before they had science, explained many things that they did not understand with "gods." There have been sun gods, thunder gods, fertility gods, rain gods, etc.

The Bible works the same way. It tries to explain many things that its ancient authors did not understand by attributing them in God. For example, if you read Genesis 9:12-13 you will find this:

And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth..."

This is the Bible's explanation of rainbows. Of course we now know that rainbows are a prismatic effect of raindrops. In the same way, Genesis chapter 3 tries to explain why human childbirth is so painful and Genesis chapter 11 tries to explain why there are so many human languages. These are myths, nothing more.

In the same way, Genesis chapter 1 contains the Bible's creation myth. The creation of the universe and life is attributed to God. We already know that God had nothing to do with the creation of life (click here), but religious people still try to attribute the creation of the universe to God.

The fact is, God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe, in the same way that God has nothing to do with the sun rising or rainbows appearing. Science does not have a complete explanation for the universe's creation, yet. While it is true that science does not yet know everything there is to know about the universe, scientists will eventually figure it out. When they do, what they will find is that nature created the universe, not an imaginary being.

God is Imaginary - Proof #4 - Think about science

reposted from Godisimaginary.com

Notice what happens when anyone is "miraculously cured". A person is sick, the person prays (or a prayer circle prays for the person) and the person is cured. A religious person looks at it and says, "God performed a miracle because of prayer!" That is the end of it.

A scientist looks at it in a very different way. A scientist looks at it and says, "Prayer had nothing to do with it - there is a natural cause for what we see here. If we understand the natural cause, then we can heal many more people suffering from the same condition."

In other words, it is only by assuming that God is imaginary that science can proceed.

You can see a direct example of science at work in this article:

Fleming had so much going on in his lab that it was often in a jumble. This disorder proved very fortunate. In 1928, he was straightening up a pile of Petri dishes where he had been growing bacteria, but which had been piled in the sink. He opened each one and examined it before tossing it into the cleaning solution. One made him stop and say, "That's funny."

Some mold was growing on one of the dishes... not too unusual, but all around the mold, the staph bacteria had been killed... very unusual. He took a sample of the mold. He found that it was from the penicillium family, later specified as Penicillium notatum. Fleming presented his findings in 1929, but they raised little interest. He published a report on penicillin and its potential uses in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology.

Fleming worked with the mold for some time, but refining and growing it was a difficult process better suited to a chemist. The work was taken over by a team of chemists and mold specialists, but was cut short when several of them died or relocated.

In 1935, Australian Howard Florey was appointed professor of pathology at Oxford University where he headed up a laboratory. This was a daunting task in an economically depressed time, and seeking funding for the researchers and work he hoped to do took much of his time. One researcher he hired soon after his arrival was Ernst Chain. Chain was paid to do cancer research, and work that spilled over into Florey's own interest and work on lysozyme. Chain became quite enthusiastic about the search for antibacterial chemicals. In looking back at old articles written about lysozyme, including those by Fleming in the 1920s, he happened across Fleming's paper on penicillin. "I had come across this paper early in 1938 and on reading it I immediately became interested," he wrote.

The Oxford team, as Florey's researchers have become known, began experimenting with the penicillin mold. They took it one step further than Fleming did: they did not just try it topically or in a petri dish, but injected it in live mice. With controlled experimentation, they found it cured mice with bacterial infections. They went on to try it on a few human subjects and saw amazing results. By now it was 1941, and England was at war. As Fleming first foresaw, the wartime need for an antibacterial was great, but resources were tight and penicillin still very experimental. Florey had connections at the Rockefeller Foundation in the United States, however, and it funded further research.

Did Fleming or Floring say, as a religious person would, "The death of this bacteria is a miracle! God has reached down and killed it!" Of course not. Instead, they completely ignored "God". They determined what was actually happening through experimentation and then made useful medicines from the mold. They took a rational approach rather than a religious approach and we all benefit from penicillin and its many derivatives today.

All of science works in this way. Only by assuming that God is imaginary and prayer is meaningless can science proceed.

The reason why scientists must assume that God is imaginary in order for the scientific method to work is because God is imaginary.

If you think God is a Delusion - Join God Is Imaginary

reposted from GodisImaginary.com

How will we change the world, so that it becomes rational rather than religious? It is fascinating to think about how the transition will occur. Here are two things to consider:

There once was a time in America when no woman could vote. Yet, somehow, even though women could not vote, they all have the right to vote today. How did that happen?

There was once a time in America where the large majority of people smoked cigarettes. Smoking was allowed everywhere -- even on airplanes and in public restrooms. Yet today, smoking is banned in most public spaces, including airplanes. How did that happen?

Both processes were remarkable and both mark tectonic shifts in public thinking. How did they happen?
The answer is that those two processes had to start somewhere. There had to come a point where some group of people in the minority said, "this is wrong, and we need to fix it." They began openly talking about the problem. Then other people in the minority agreed. Then, eventually, the minority began to influence those on the outer edges of the majority. Once that process started and gained sufficient momentum, the majority (e.g. smokers) became the minority. And now we all understand that smokers have a problem. Smokers were unfortunate to become dependent on a highly addictive drug as teenagers, at a time when their rational brains were not fully developed. As a society, we now do our best to discourage teens from getting hooked and to help those who are already addicted.
Here is a simple question: Can we have the same sort of effect on religions like Christianity? Can we change Christianity from a "majority" activity into a fringe activity, and in the process replace it with something much, much better?
The idea of unseating something as strong as Christianity sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But then, when women first started talking about gaining the right to vote, that sounded ridiculous too. We have to start somewhere.
This web site represents a starting point.

Watch the video
The way to change the world is to change people's minds. As more and more people openly discuss the fact that "God" and "Allah" are completely imaginary, the world becomes a better place. The people who believe in "religion" look sillier and sillier. Eventually, religion becomes a fringe activity that is meaningless.
Whenever anyone says "God," we should reply, "God is imaginary."

It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:

Watch the video

Join us

Spread the word

Prayers DO NOT work - Prove to yourself that God is imaginary

l ink from RichardDawkins.net

Billions of people attend millions of churches around the world to worship God.

Yet the God they worship is completely imaginary. Their belief represents a delusion.

It is easy to prove that God is imaginary. Start at the beginning with Proof #1, or try these five all-time favorites:

The best optical illusion in the world!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

Please help spread the word

Prove to yourself that God is imaginary:

TOC

Sense About Science respond to the misrepresentation of science and scientific evidence on issues that matter

Sense About Science is an independent charitable trust.

We respond to the misrepresentation of science and scientific evidence on issues that matter to society, from scares about plastic bottles, fluoride and the MMR vaccine to controversies about genetic modification, stem cell research and radiation. Our recent and current priorities include alternative medicine, MRI, detox, nuclear power, evidence in public health advice, weather patterns and an educational resource on peer review.

Sense About Science - Stars must 'check science facts'

reposted from BBC News

Hypodermic needle (Image: Science Photo Library)

Campaigners says celebrities need to check facts before going public

Celebrities have been asked to check their facts before lending support to scientific research and campaigns, rather than risk misleading people.

Some celebrity-backed campaigns have done more harm than good, such as linking the MMR jab to autism, says the charity Sense about Science.

The group has listed statements made by stars on topics such as organic food, pesticides and ways to avoid cancer.

It adds scientists' views on whether the claims are misleading.

The list is contained in a pamphlet which is being distributed to VIP clubs and restaurants across the UK, as well as management agencies and publishers.

It offers advice such as "if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is", and lists a phone number for concerned celebrities to call if they want to discuss anything with experts.

Tracey Brown, Sense About Science's director, explained the thinking behind the leaflet.

"All year long, people send us frustrating examples of celebrities promoting something that makes no sense," she said. "Once it's done, it's really difficult to undo."

Scientists, traditionally a quiet bunch, are now trying to redress the balance and finding ways of promoting fact over misinformation

Illusionist Derren Brown

"We are producing this leaflet to show those in the public eye just how easy it is now to get help from scientists," Ms Brown added.

"We know some people are not interested in good science or evidence [but] we are equally sure some will be glad to talk through claims they are asked to front."

One celebrity who is backing the campaign is illusionist Derren Brown. He said: "We are more than aware that the media prefer a shocking story over delicate fact.

"In areas like food, environment and medicine, this can have serious results," he added.

"Scientists, traditionally a quiet bunch, are now trying to redress the balance and finding ways of promoting fact over misinformation."

In November, Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, called on the scientific community to become more involved in public debates about their research.

He added that there was a tendency for minority "strident" views to get exaggerated, leading to an unbalanced debate.

Are Santa, book of Mormon, Muslim religion, Jesus - ALL Imaginery?

reposted from godisimaginary.com
God is Imaginary - Proof #7
- Understanding religious delusion

Watch the video

Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

There is a man who lives at the North Pole.

He lives there with his wife and a bunch of elves.

During the year, he and the elves build toys.

Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads up a sack with all the toys.

He puts the sack in his sleigh.

He hitches up eight (or possibly nine) flying reindeer.

He then flies from house to house, landing on the rooftops of each one.

He gets out with his sack and climbs down the chimney.

He leaves toys for the children of the household.

He climbs back up the chimney, gets back in his sleigh, and flies to the next house.

He does this all around the world in one night.

Then he flies back to the North Pole to repeat the cycle next year.

This, of course, is the story of Santa Claus.

But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.

What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.

Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that Santa is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about Santa, you are not going to believe that Santa is real. Flying reindeer, for example, are make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly.

Since you are my friend, you might try to help me realize that my belief in Santa is a delusion. The way that you would try to do that is by asking me some questions. For example, you might say to me:

"But how can the sleigh carry enough toys for everyone in the world?" I say to you that the sleigh is magical. It has the ability to do this intrinsically.

"How does Santa get into houses and apartments that don't have chimneys?" I say that Santa can make chimneys appear, as shown to all of us in the movie The Santa Clause.

"How does Santa get down the chimney if there's a fire in the fireplace?" I say that Santa has a special flame-resistant suit, and it cleans itself too.

"Why doesn't the security system detect Santa?" Santa is invisible to security systems.

"How can Santa travel fast enough to visit every child in one night?" Santa is timeless.

"How can Santa know whether every child has been bad or good?" Santa is omniscient.

"Why are the toys distributed so unevenly? Why does Santa deliver more toys to rich kids, even if they are bad, than he ever gives to poor kids?" There is no way for us to understand the mysteries of Santa because we are mere mortals, but Santa has his reasons. For example, perhaps poor children would be unable to handle a flood of expensive electronic toys. How would they afford the batteries? So Santa spares them this burden.

These are all quite logical questions that you have asked. I have answered all of them for you. I am wondering why you can't see what I see, and you are wondering how I can be so insane.

Why didn't my answers satisfy you? Why do you still know that I am delusional? It is because my answers have done nothing but confirm your assessment. My answers are ridiculous. In order to answer your questions, I invented, completely out of thin air, a magical sleigh, a magical self-cleaning suit, magical chimneys, "timelessness" and magical invisibility. You don't believe my answers because you know that I am making this stuff up. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Now let me show you another example...

Another Example

Imagine that I tell you the following story:

I was in my room one night.

Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright.

Next thing I know there is an angel in my room.

He tells me an amazing story.

He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York.

On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America.

These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people.

Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home.

Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them.

Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again.

I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things -- an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago.

And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people!

I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.

Now, what would you say to me about this story? Even though I do have a book, in English, that tells the story of this lost Jewish civilization, and even though I do have the signed attestations, what do you think? This story sounds nutty, doesn't it?

You would ask some obvious questions. For example, at the very simplest level, you might ask, "Where are the ruins and artifacts from this Jewish civilization in America?" The book transcribed from the plates talks about millions of Jewish people doing all kinds of things in America. They have horses and oxen and chariots and armor and large cities. What happened to all of this? I answer simply: it is all out there, but we have not found it yet. "Not one city? Not one chariot wheel? Not one helmet?" you ask. No, we haven't found a single bit of evidence, but it is out there somewhere. You ask me dozens of questions like this, and I have answers for them all.

Most people would assume that I am delusional if I told them this story. They would assume that there were no plates and no angel, and that I had written the book myself. Most people would ignore the attestations -- having people attest to it means nothing, really. I could have paid the attesters off, or I could have fabricated them. Most people would reject my story without question.

What's interesting is that there are millions of people who actually do believe this story of the angel and the plates and the book and the Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago. Those millions of people are members of the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The person who told this incredible story was a man named Joseph Smith, and he lived in the United States in the early 1800s. He told his story, and recorded what he "translated from the plates", in the Book of Mormon.

If you meet a Mormon and ask them about this story, they can spend hours talking to you about it. They can answer every question you have. Yet the 5.99 billion of us who are not Mormons can see with total clarity that the Mormons are delusional. It is as simple as that. You and I both know with 100% certainty that the Mormon story is no different from the story of Santa. And we are correct in our assessment. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Another example

Imagine that I tell you this story:

A man was sitting in a cave minding his own business.

A very bright flash of light appeared.

A voice spoke out one word: "Read!" The man felt like he was being squeezed to death. This happened several times.

Then the man asked, "What should I read?"

The voice said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created humans from a clinging [zygote]. Read for your Lord is the most generous. He taught people by the pen what they didn't know before."

The man ran home to his wife.

While running home, he saw the huge face of an angel in the sky. The angel told the man that he was to be the messenger of God. The angel also identified himself as Gabriel.

At home that night, the angel appeared to the man in his dreams.

Gabriel appeared to the man over and over again. Sometimes it was in dreams, sometimes during the day as "revelations in his heart," sometimes preceded by a painful ringing in his ears (and then the verses would flow from Gabriel right out of the man), and sometimes Gabriel would appear in the flesh and speak. Scribes wrote down everything the man said.

Then, one night about 11 years after the first encounter with Gabriel, Gabriel appeared to the man with a magical horse. The man got on the horse, and the horse took him to Jerusalem. Then the winged horse took the man up to the seven layers of heaven. The man was able to actually see heaven and meet and talk with people there. Then Gabriel brought the man back to earth.

The man proved that he had actually been to Jerusalem on the winged horse by accurately answering questions about buildings and landmarks there.

The man continued receiving the revelations from Gabriel for 23 years, and then they stopped. All of the revelations were recorded by the scribes in a book which we still have today.
[Source: "Understanding Islam" by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha press, 2002]

What do you make of this story? If you have never heard the story before, you may find it to be nonsensical in the same way that you feel about the stories of the golden plates and Santa. You would especially feel that way once you read the book that was supposedly transcribed from Gabriel, because much of it is opaque. The dreams, the horse, the angel, the ascension, and the appearances of the angel in the flesh -- you would dismiss them all because it is all imaginary.

But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the Muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the Koran (also spelled Qur'an or Qur'aan). This is the sacred story of the Koran's creation and the revelation of Allah to mankind.

Despite the fact that a billion Muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the Muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the Koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? That is imaginary -- as imaginary as flying reindeer.

If you are a Christian, please take a moment right now to look back at the Mormon and Muslim stories. Why is it so easy for you to look at these stories and see that they are imaginary fairy tales? How do you know, with complete certainty, that Mormons and Muslims are delusional? You know these things for the same reason you know that Santa is imaginary. There is no evidence for any of it. The stories involve magical things like angels and winged horses, hallucinations, dreams. Horses cannot fly -- we all know that. And even if they could, where would the horse fly to? The vacuum of space? Or is the horse somehow "dematerialized" and then "rematerialized" in heaven? If so, those processes are made up too. Every bit of it is imaginary. We all know that.

An unbiased observer can see how imaginary these three stories are. In addition, Muslims can see that Mormons are delusional, Mormons can see that Muslims are delusional, and Christians can see that both Mormons and Muslims are delusional.

One final example

Now let me tell you one final story:

God inseminated a virgin named Mary, in order to bring his son incarnate into our world.

Mary and her fiancé, Joseph, had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census. There Mary gave birth to the Son of God.

God put a star in the sky to guide people to the baby.

In a dream God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then God stood by and watched as Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel in an attempt to kill Jesus.

As a man, God's son claimed that he was God incarnate: "I am the way, the truth and the life," he said.

This man performed many miracles. He healed lots of sick people. He turned water into wine. These miracles prove that he is God.

But he was eventually given the death sentence and killed by crucifixion.

His body was placed in a tomb.

But three days later, the tomb was empty.

And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds (so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.

Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the father almighty, never to be seen again.

Today you can have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. You can pray to this man and he will answer your prayers. He will cure your diseases, rescue you from emergencies, help you make important business and family decisions, comfort you in times of worry and grief, etc.

This man will also give you eternal life, and if you are good he has a place for you in heaven after you die.

The reason we know all this is because, after the man died, four people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote accounts of the man's life. Their written attestations are proof of the veracity of this story.

This, of course, is the story of Jesus. Do you believe this story? If you are a Christian, you probably do. I could ask you questions for hours and you will have answers for every one of them, in just the same way that I had answers for all of the Santa questions that my friend asked me in Example 1. You cannot understand how anyone could question any of it, because it is so obvious to you.

Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.

How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on. People outside the Christian faith look at the Christian story and note these facts:

The miracles are supposed to "prove" that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks - see this proof.

Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today - see this proof.

Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyse prayer and find that prayers are never answered - see this proof.

The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is chock full of problems and contradictions - see this proof.

And so on.

In other words, the Christian story is a fairly tale, just like the other three examples we have examined.

Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?

Try, just for a moment, to look at Christianity with the same amount of healthy skepticism that you used when approaching the stories of Santa, Joseph Smith and Mohammed. Use your common sense to ask some very simple questions of yourself:

Is there any physical evidence that Jesus existed? - No. He left no trace. His body "ascended into heaven." He wrote nothing down. None of his "miracles" left any permanent evidence. There is, literally, nothing.

Is there any reason to believe that Jesus actually performed these miracles, or that he rose from the dead, or that he ascended into heaven? - There is no more of a reason to believe this than there is to believe that Joseph Smith found the golden plates hidden in New York, or that Mohammed rode on a magical winged horse to heaven. Probably less of a reason, given that the record of Jesus' life is 2,000 years old, while that of Joseph Smith is less than 200 years old.

You mean to tell me that I am supposed to believe this story of Jesus, and there is no proof or evidence to go by beyond a few attestations in the New Testament of a Bible that is provably meaningless? - Yes, you are supposed to believe it. You are supposed to take it on "faith."

No one (besides little kids) believes in Santa Claus. No one outside the Mormon church believes Joseph Smith's story. No one outside the Muslim faith believes the story of Mohammed and Gabriel and the winged horse. No one outside the Christian faith believes in Jesus' divinity, miracles, resurrection, etc.

Therefore, the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense? For example:

Christians know that when the Egyptians built gigantic pyramids and mummified the bodies of their pharaohs, that it was a total waste of time -- otherwise Christians would build pyramids.

Christians know that when the Aztecs carved the heart out of a virgin and ate it, that it accomplished nothing -- otherwise Christians would kill virgins.

Christians know that when Muslims face Mecca to pray, that it is pointless -- otherwise Christians would face Mecca when they pray.

Christians know that when Jews keep meat and dairy products separate, that they are wasting their time -- otherwise the cheeseburger would not be an American obsession.

Yet, when Christians look at their own religion, they are for some reason blind. Why? And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Christian story is true. Your rational mind knows that with certainty, and so do four billion others. This book, if you will let it, can tell you why.

A simple experiment

If you are a Christian who believes in the power of prayer, here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.

Take a coin out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:

Dear Ra, almighty sun god, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Ra's name I pray, Amen.

Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won't get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails.

What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary (at least in the sense of prayer-answering ability) by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Ra has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray. Even if we find a thousand of Ra's most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same. Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Ra is imaginary. We look at Ra in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on. We know that people who believe in Ra are delusional.

Now I want you to try the experiment again, but this time I want you to pray to Jesus Christ instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:

Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the Bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.

Now flip the coin. Once again, after the fifth or sixth flip, the coin will land tails.

If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. It is not like there are two laws of probability -- one for Christians who pray and the other for non-Christians. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statitical analysis.

If you believe in God, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Ra you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Ra is imaginary. But with Jesus... something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why Jesus did not answer your prayers:

It is not his will

He doesn't have time

I didn't pray the right way

I am not worthy

I do not have enough faith

I cannot test the Lord like this

It is not part of Jesus' plan for me

And on and on and on...

One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: “Well, of course Jesus doesn’t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible (see this proof), Jesus does not ever say, "don't pray to me about coin tosses." Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.

You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science - Links

Dr. Susan Blackmore

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/ : Sue Blackmore is a freelance writer, lecturer and broadcaster, and a Visiting Lecturer at the University of the West of England, Bristol. She has a degree in psychology and physiology from Oxford University (1973) and a PhD in parapsychology from the University of Surrey (1980). Her research interests include memes, evolutionary theory, consciousness, and meditation.

Edge.org

http://edge.org/ : The mandate of Edge Foundation is to promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society.

GodIsImaginary.com

http://godisimaginary.com : It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs.

onegoodmove.org - I thought these things might be clues.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/ : Norm Jensen's great blog on politics, science, atheism, religion, chess and more. He posts clips of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report just about every day. Do I need to say any more?

SamHarris.org

http://samharris.org : The official website for Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.

Talk Origins

http://www.talkorigins.org/ : This is an excellent resource for anyone facing the inane arguments presented by Creationists.

Ten Verses Never Preached On

http://www.churchhopping.com/ten-verses-never-preached-on/ : Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV - "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord." How's that for an example!?

The Best of Net Atheism

http://www.atheist-top-sites.com/cgi-bin/best/topsites.cgi?click=1163796009 : Browse the top Atheism sites on the Web.

The Official God F.A.Q.

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/ : This should tell you everything you need to know about God.

UK Secularist Sites and Forum

http://www.secularsites.freeuk.com/ : This is a directory of web-sites that offer a range of opinion from some of the many individual atheist thinkers, writers and activists currently working towards the full establishment of rationalist, humanist, secularist, non-sectarian conduct of human affairs.

Never before has it been possible to read and spread these ideas free of the traditional censorship of the religious themselves or the politicians and media that are too craven to break their suppression of atheism.

For them to be effective and for religion to be relegated to its only rightful place, as a private activity for consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes and places of worship, we must grasp this new medium of communication and promote the widest possible range of atheist views .

Why Does God Hate Amputees?

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com : Is God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions in America today, because this question lies at the heart of the American culture wars.

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

Video Transcript by Richard Dawkins

See video at RichardDawkins.net

Chris Street edits in bold

I have just visited my local branch of Britain’s biggest bookshop chain (WHSmith?), and this is what I found: six books on astronomy and nineteen books on astrology. The real science is outnumbered three to one by the pseudoscience. There were twenty books on angels, which means that angels and astrology together (39) outnumber the totality of books on all the sciences (33). When you add in the books on fairies, crystal healing, fortune telling, faith healing, Nostradamus, psychics and dream interpretation, it is no contest. Pseudoscience outnumbers science by at least three to one, and I didn’t even begin to count the far larger number of books on religion. This is not, of course, an academic bookshop. Oxford is well supplied with those, and they’d show a very different result. I made my counts in a popular bookshop, presumably typical of the nationwide chain of which it is a part – indeed, the chain’s buying policy is centralized in London, and we may be sure that strenuous and expensive efforts are made to reflect popular taste. As a statistical generalization, the general public, as opposed to an academic readership, prefers irrational books over books that reflect what we know about the real world.

A recent Gallup poll concluded that nearly 50% of the American public believes the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Nearly half the population, in other words, believes that the entire universe, the sun and solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy, and all the billions of other galaxies, all began after the domestication of the dog. They believe this because they rate a particular bronze age origin myth more highly than all the scientific evidence in the world. It is only one of literally thousands of such myths from around the world, but it happened, by a series of historical accidents, to become enshrined in a book – Genesis – which, by another series of historical accidents, has been translated and disseminated to almost every home in the land plus – infuriatingly – every hotel room. Even before science told us the true story of the origin of the world and the evolution of life, there was no reason to believe the Jewish origin myth any more than the origin myths of the Yoruba or the Kikuyu, the Yanomamo or the Maori, the Dogon or the Cherokee. Now, in the 21st century as we approach Darwin’s bicentenary, the fact that half of Americans take Genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal.

The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. But it must be a positive attack, for science and reason have so much to give. They are not just useful, they enrich our lives in the same kind of way as the arts do. Promoting science as poetry was one of the things that Carl Sagan did so well, and I aspire to continue his tradition.

Of course, excellent organizations already exist for raising funds and deploying them in the service of reason, science and enlightenment values. In Britain there are the British Humanist Association, the National Secular Society and the Rationalist Press Association, to mention a few. In America there are the Center for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the James Randi Educational Foundation, and many others. But the money that these organizations can raise is dwarfed by the huge resources of religious foundations such as the Templeton Foundation, not to mention the tithe-bloated, tax-exempt churches.

Over the years, I have given what I could to various secular and rationalist organizations, especially in America where the need is greatest. Unfortunately, however, it is hard for a British citizen to do this in a tax-efficient way. Charities in Britain and America are seldom recognized by the tax authorities on the other side of the Atlantic. Even when they are, the tax systems are different enough in the two countries to make major difficulties. For example, in America it is the donor who reclaims the tax, while in Britain it is the charity that reclaims the donor’s tax for itself.

I started to feel the need for an Anglo-American charity which would cut through these difficulties and facilitate the movement of funds to wherever they are most needed. At the same time it has been increasingly suggested to me that I personally might have some value as a fund raiser, because my books sell well in both countries. Many of my readers are enthusiastic and passionate about science and reason – and some have been kind enough to attribute their enthusiasm and passion to reading my books. Some of these enthusiasts are generous and eager to give, yet some of them might not necessarily think of giving to one of the existing secularist or rationalist charities. Did I not have a duty to set up my own charitable foundation?

My Trustees and I have set up the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science – RDFRS, or RDF. It is actually two sister foundations of the same name, one legally constituted in Britain and the other legally incorporated in the United States. It has an American trustee based in America (Karen Owens), an American trustee based in Britain (Claire Enders) and a British trustee based in Britain (me). At present, both organizations are companies, with applications for charitable recognition pending in their two countries.

Here is an example of how it might work (written version only):

When the charitable status has been granted, it will work like this. A British donor who wishes to give, say, £1000 to an American rationalist cause (either RDF itself or another charity) will give approximately £820 to the British RDF. RDF will then claim approximately £180 as a tax refund, making up the £1000, give it in dollars to the American RDFRS which will, if requested, pass it on to another American charity specified by the donor. Conversely, an American donor wishing to give, say, $1000 to a British (or Commonwealth) good cause will give it to the American RDF. The American RDF will send it to the British RDF with instructions to pass it on to the cause specified by the original donor. Meanwhile, the original donor claims the tax refund from the IRS, according to American charity law.

In these calculations, for the sake of argument, I have allowed for the possibility that the donor is specifying some other good cause as the ultimate beneficiary. But of course RDF itself, on both sides of the Atlantic, will have its own vigorous program of activities which will be well worth supporting in their own right. These will no doubt grow, as the years go by, but we initially visualize the following.

1. Research. We intend to sponsor research into the psychological basis of unreason. What is it about human psychology that predisposes people to find astrology more appealing than astronomy? At what age are young people most vulnerable to unreason? What are the correlations between religiosity and superstition on the one hand, and intelligence, educational level, type of education etc. on the other? Research of this kind would be supported in the form of grants to universities in America and Britain or wherever the best research can be done.

2. Education. Within the limits on political activity imposed by the charity laws of the respective countries, we would seek to support rational and scientific education at all ages, and to oppose the subversion of scientific education, for example by the well-financed efforts to teach creationism in science classes. Depending on how much money we raise, we would hope to subsidize the publication of books, pamphlets, DVDs and other educational materials.

3. Website. We shall maintain a high quality website (RichardDawkins.net/foundation), offering scientific, rationalist and humanist information and materials. This document is on that website, which is designed and maintained by Josh Timonen, a highly talented and expert web site designer (see Upper Branch Design). Please explore the website to see the range of stuff that is already there. And please volunteer suggestions and contributions to web.master@rdfrs.org.

4. Database of lecturers. We intend to keep a list, organized by regions in both America and Britain, of people, in universities and elsewhere, who might be willing to receive invitations to lecture. I receive a large number of such invitations myself. I accept as many as I can, but I can’t accept all of them. It would be extremely helpful to have, at my disposal, a list of younger people who might be less well known at this stage of their career, but who would probably give a much better lecture than I ever could. The database would be arranged on a region by region basis so that travel times to lecturing venues can be minimized.

5. Merchandise. Within the legal limits imposed on non-profit organizations in the two countries, we intend to supply, either free or at nominal prices, DVDs, tapes, podcasts, booklets etc. These will initially include such of my own television documentaries etc. as I am allowed to provide. For example, I am negotiating to acquire the rights to my 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children, entitled Growing Up in the Universe and originally broadcast by the BBC.

6. Publication. My own books are published by commercial publishers in Britain and America, but there are many excellent books on rationalism, humanism, secularism and atheism that are published only in one country. RDFRS, with its ‘dual nationality’, is well placed to arrange the publication of American books (videos, DVDs etc.) in Britain, and vice versa. At some time in the future, we might embark on some original publishing of our own.

7. Charitable giving by secularists to humanitarian good causes. Major disasters like earthquakes or tornados prompt a desire by decent people of all persuasions to help. I, for one, am always anxious that my money should go to help the disaster victims but should not fall into the hands of missionaries or other church-based organizations. Even if these organizations do eventually pass it on to the victims, they often do so with strings attached. Some of us are keen that no proportion of our donations should fall into the hands of missionaries. RDFRS will hope to maintain a list of charities, worldwide, which are certified free of missionary or church contamination.

8. Consciousness-raising. Feminists and homosexuals have taught us the value of consciousness-raising. A phrase like “One man one vote” either causes you to flinch, or is uttered with intent to make you flinch. It is nowadays almost impossible to hear the phrase with its original innocent meaning of “One adult person one vote.” Some atheists and freethinkers try to raise consciousness about, for example, the phrase ‘under God’ in the US Pledge of Allegiance. I am more interested in raising consciousness about something else: the habit, practised not only by religious people, of labeling children by the religion of their parents. This is a Catholic child. That is a Muslim child. I want everybody to flinch when they hear such a phrase, just as they would if they heard, That is a Marxist child. It is immoral to brand young children with the religion of their parents. At present, hardly anybody’s consciousness is raised to this. I would welcome suggestions, perhaps from those with experience of the feminist and gay campaigns, for the most effective ways to raise consciousness. I would like such consciousness-raising to be a particular project of this foundation.