normanchateau

My description of drug effectiveness is accurate. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/cons...g-medica_e.html Your definition of effectiveness was indeed accurate based on the Health Canada 2001 workshop on defining drug effectiveness/outcomes. Below are the definitions from the 2007 Health Canada glossary I cited previously: Effectiveness How well a drug does what it is intended to do under in "real world" circumstances. This is a measure of how well a drug treats the symptoms of a condition when average, everyday patients are taking it. Efficacy How well a drug does what it is intended to do under ideal circumstances. This is a measure of how well a drug behave according to controlled scientific expectations when used in clinical trials and drug development. Benefit-Risk Profile The current interpretation of benefit-risk profile for a drug is a reflection of the overall balance of the product's potential benefits with its identified risks as revealed through the safety and efficacy evidence, and through consideration of how that evidence contextualizes with normal conditions of use on market. As new information becomes available, this can affect the overall benefit-risk profile.

It describes the beliefs of the many of people who might participate in religion for social reasons but do not otherwise subscribe to the dogma. This is an interesting definition of spirituality. I suspect the highly-opinionated Dawkins would have a word other than spiritual to describe those who participate in religion for social reasons rather than because of sincere faith.

Better still, the Canadian government should mete out Biblical punishments for violating religious rules written during the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Leviticus 24:16 has just the right punishment for taking the Lord's name in vain. Exodus 31:15 suggests the identical punishment for working on the Sabbath. How about exactly the same penalty in Exodus 21:17 for cursing at one's father or mother? Let's forget about secular law and use the New Testament, the Old Testament and for Muslims, the Koran. After all, people were so much wiser in the Bronze Age before the era of science and reason.

Dawkins is quite the crusader. It is ironic that he seems to exhibit much of the narrow minded dogmatism that he claims to dislike so much. He also clearly does not understand the distinction between religion and spirituality. I could be mistaken but I believe that Dawkins' argument is with religion, not spirituality. I'm not sure how you operationally define spirituality but to me, the term is interchangeable with mysticism, and includes, but is not limited to, beliefs in the healing power of crystals and colonic irrigation and other New Age phenomena. I suspect if asked, Dawkins would respect spirituality as he does religion.

I suspect that you are confusing the effectiveness or efficacy of a drug with the benefit-risk profile of a drug. Health Canada has produced a useful glossary of drug licensing terminology: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/homologatio...ss/index_e.html

Dawkins and others argue that this practice is a form of child abuse: "Such abuse begins with the involuntary involvement of children in religious practices from the time they are born. All religions, through ritual, preaching, and religious texts, seek to bring children into day-to-day religious practice. This gives holy books and scriptures, as well as those who teach them, an early grip on the developing minds of young people, leaving an indelible impression on them. In many cases, most notably in the Catholic Church, this forced and prolonged exposure of children to religious institutions has also been a key factor in the physical, mental, and sexual abuse of children by religious leaders. This early grip is so strong that very few people, once grown, ever get an opportunity to change their minds, despite being exposed to science and rational thinking, or even other religious systems. Religious beliefs thrive by imposing themselves upon impressionable minds and gaining their blind adherence to certain dogmatic practices." Source: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1230,Rel...ecular-Humanism

but incompetent he ain't. No more than Gordon O'Connor.

This supposed image of hypocrisy and incompetence appears to be fictitious. If it were would Harper be selected by 42.2% of Canadians as the best Prime Minister? That's a poll in which Stephane Dion got a whopping 16.7% support. Link That poll was held when the Conservatives were at 40%. Now they're tied with the Liberals.

He hasn't been in power long enough to build up a real following of haters like PET or Mulroney. I agree. Harper still has enough time to change his image and become likeable. The more important question is whether he has the time to change his image of hypocrisy and incompetence.

Do you want me to bring up other issues on which his position is socially conservative?

And of course no one on this board ever blamed the Liberals when they were in power.

The NDP aren't happy with it because it doesn't have proportional representation. Perhaps the NDP could demonstrate this idea in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It's the fair thing to do even though I suspect the Conservatives will be the greatest beneficiaries.

Not enough evidence has been collected to answer that question. My prediction is that two dads would still be better than one dad without a mom but it remains an empirical question.

And I thought I was cynical...

In fact , havng two moms might mean the kid is better........could that happen? Sure could. I'm not sure if the professor who wrote the review considered this but here's one possible reason why two moms might sometimes be better. When two women decide to have a child, it's usually a well, thought out decision rather than an accident. When a man and woman have a child, often it's unwanted, i.e., an unplanned pregnancy. It's no surprise to anyone that wanted children would have more supportive parents than unwanted children. There's a higher probability of the offspring of a man and a woman having an unwanted child than two woman having an unwanted child. Having said this, I hope the social conservatives on this board don't interpret this as me saying or advocating that two moms are better than a mom and a father. That's not at all what I'm saying. I was an accident. Definitely not planned....especially at their age! But I was never made to feel unwanted. I bet most of us here are actually results of accidents. But you know what, in Canada today, there's no such thing as an "unwanted" kid. They might say it....but push comes to shove, a lot of unplanned babies become well-loved babies. Betsy, I don't doubt for a moment that you turned out fine despite being the result of an unplanned pregnancy. I also don't doubt that this is true for most unplanned pregnancies. My point is simply that in many unwanted pregnancies, the outcome has negative consequences for the child including parental abuse and neglect, e.g., "Attitudes held before the birth of the child, such as negative maternal attitude toward an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, have also been associated with later maltreatment (Altmeier et al., 1982; Brunquell et al., 1981; Egeland and Brunquell, 1979; Murphy et al., 1985; Zuravin, 1987)."

When this Liberal gets upset, he posts new topics. At 22 posts a day(that's a lot of time posting every day), I think he's totally obsessed with the Conservatives running his Liberal government and he wants it back. Maybe he's a Liberal mole. Maybe that's a personal attack.

maybe he doesn't view a sexual orientation as some kind of new species, and that all humans should be protected against any campaign for their death. Then why does he support hate crimes legislation based on race or religion?

Dion's handlers should advise him on how to engage in Harper-like hypocrisy.

It says, "it concludes that his conduct was inappropritae and unethical, and a breach of Senate rules on access to information and privacy." I can't however, find the part that says he broke the law. This appeared in the article as well: "At the time of the leak, Kroeker was a senior aide to Marjory LeBreton, the government's leader in the Senate and secretary of state for seniors' issues. He is currently director of communications and parliamentary affairs for Helena Guergis, secretary of state for foreign affairs." Sounds suspiciously like engaging in unethical and inappropriate conduct for the Conservatives results in an apparent promotion to director of communications and parliamentary affairs! It would be interesting to know who decided that this merited a promotion.

Do you seriously believe that the Concordia professor's review of more than 100 published studies was based on studies performed in Canada? actually, I'm not surprised they didn't bother to study Canadians. After all, this study was commissioned by a Liberal government trying desperately to cram a policy down our throats. Mere details such as whether they did their own research or not wasn't worth considering, as long as they stayed with in the $25,000 chump change the government offered. This was a review of the published literature. If there were no studies of a Canadian sample, the Conservatives are welcome to fund such a study. They're about as likely to do that as Stephen Harper is not a social conservative.

Sounds like some BQ voters are right wingers. Harper should figure out a way to exploit that.

It says, "it concludes that his conduct was inappropritae and unethical, and a breach of Senate rules on access to information and privacy." I can't however, find the part that says he broke the law. This appeared in the article as well: "At the time of the leak, Kroeker was a senior aide to Marjory LeBreton, the government's leader in the Senate and secretary of state for seniors' issues. He is currently director of communications and parliamentary affairs for Helena Guergis, secretary of state for foreign affairs." Sounds suspiciously like engaging in unethical and inappropriate conduct for the Conservatives results in an apparent promotion to director of communications and parliamentary affairs!

Churches can discriminate on any grounds that they want. It's called freedom of religion. They can still even discriminate on the basis of religion. A church can decide that they won't marry people of different religions. When Bill C-250 was passed making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals, churches were exempted in a sense. For example, even though some religious texts advocate the killing of homosexuals, churches using those texts can not be prosecuted under Bill C-250. Nonetheless, Harper still voted against C-250.

Obviously I forgot that only sane and clear-minded people support the actions of a hypocritical, incompetent prime minister... I admire your passion, though. Sincere thanks.

So you think any review of the published literature must be limited to research performed in the country which funded the literature review? Why don't you inform the major Canadian scientific granting agencies, i.e., NSERC, CIHR, NSERC, that they should request that Canadian researchers must duplicate any research study performed in the US involving human subjects? they'll be impressed with your clever idea.