Another letter

Posted on December 14, 2009 by Michael

The Kennebec Journal (KJ) has done what has become rare and published something which is full of sense and science: a letter by me.

Naturopathic medicine is pure bull.

Let’s not beat around the bush on this one. Those who practice naturopathy are quacks. They may be sincere quacks, but sincerity does not translate to evidence — or your health.

The Ontario legislature is considering giving naturopathic “doctors” prescription rights. This presents a serious danger to the health of any Canadian ignorant enough to be duped into the “care” of these charlatans.

But it hits closer to home than that. Maine is just one of several states that give these vastly underqualified “doctors” such rights. This presents a serious risk. They have no relevant medical training for offering prescriptions; this makes them highly susceptible to blindly doling out contra-indicated drugs, among other dangerous possibilities.

I cannot overstate this fact: Naturopaths are not doctors and they are not qualified.

They cherry-pick evidence, often lie and misrepresent facts.

Recently, a local naturopathic “doctor,” Christopher Maloney, wrote a letter in which he committed himself to that third possibility. He implied H1N1 vaccination properties for black elderberry. The only relevant studies on black elderberry are for the regular flu, do not show vaccination properties, and far larger studies are needed (as noted by the original researchers).

I implore anyone considering naturopathic “medicine” to not do it and/or cross-check Maloney’s “facts.” Naturopathy is not a science in any sense of the word; it is not to be trusted.

A long laundry list countering false naturopathic claims can be found at the qualified page Terra Sig on http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2009/11/more_naturopathic_nonsense_in.php

If everyone began to demand evidence, we could do away with this naturopathic “medicine” malarkey. We’d be all the safer for it.

Michael Hawkins

Augusta

withoutapologyinmaine@gmail.com

I’m glad I was able to sneak that email address in there. Without Apology is my publication and the sister site to FTSOS. That little advertisement is probably the best I can do there since I’m sure the KJ won’t let me link back to myself.

Anyway.

I don’t know if it was because I recently laid out a short summary of the sort of antics this paper has been playing (and then subsequently emailed the link the head honcho), but it took me some time to get this letter published. I originally wanted a much more comprehensive letter published, but Jim Evans lied to me and wouldn’t admit that libel was his concern, so I settled for a pro-atheism letter. Seeing through Evans’ lies, I rewrote my letter so that I could call Maloney a charlatan without directly saying it and submitted that. And then resubmitted it. And again. It looks like persistence won the day. (And that’s fortunate for Evans because once finals were over I planned on paying him a personal visit to get him to just tell me the truth. I mean, goodness. Just say what you mean.)

In the comment section of this letter, “homesteps” of Chelsea speaks of his/her experience being treated by Maloney. S/he says this.

Chris is very good at looking at factors that may impact mysterious conditions. He helps patients with food diaries and elimination diets. He encourages them to embrace an all-around healthier lifestyle. On top of these qualities, he is focused on finding the true underlying problems and treating the whole patient. He often recommends that people see their regular medical doctors, as he recognizes the limitations of any one-size-fits-all approach. He is one of the most caring doctors we have been to.

Maloney is NOT a doctor by any reasonable measures – and Maine’s measures are not reasonable! He has NO qualifications which earn him that title beyond the state’s bogus measurements!** It’s all fine and dandy if someone wants to waste money on someone telling them to not eat crappy foods* (should I be charging you readers for that nugget of advice?), but let’s not pretend that these people are actually qualified to be doling out medical advice. As I note in my letter, people run the risk of taking contra-indicated drugs if we start treating naturopaths as real doctors.

*I’m not disparaging true nutritionists or implying that their advice is a waste. My comment is more specific; think of going up to some random schlub on the street and asking him for dietary advice. He may rightly tell you that eating a lot of trans fat is bad for you, but that doesn’t mean that he has done anything to earn payment from you.

**Maloney whined to WordPress to make me change this. I originally said he was not a doctor at all. Under the technicality of Maine law, he is a doctor. But he’s a dangerous one because he lies about the efficacy of treatments to suit his purposes. And, again, he is not allowed to practice naturopathy in two states.

Filed under: News, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

More dumb newspaper

Posted on September 16, 2009 by Michael

I recently wrote about the stink of dumb coming from my local newspaper. The new, conservative editor, after months of talking about health care and days of mentioning an upcoming speech by Obama, placed what was clearly the lead story (said speech) on the third page. The front page amounted to an advertisement for same-sex marriage bigots opponents. The editor has followed up with more inanity.

Law’s opponents gather in Augusta for strategy session

Christ. This was a closed-door, routine political campaign type meeting. It was not front page news. The editor – Richard L. Connor – is just a bigot pushing an agenda. That’s pretty much the norm for conservatives. But I have no problem with him voicing his silly little ill-begotten opinion in his unfortunately dwindling newspaper. As long as he does it in the editorial section. That’s where it belongs. He put his Christian-based bigotry on the front page at the expense of an actual news story. That makes him an awful editor with little to no common sense.

Ya know, this guy has a history of this sort of rubbish. When he first bought the paper, he made himself front page news to introduce himself. Okay, fair enough. But then a couple days later he did the exact same thing, except he took up something crazy like 46 inches to do it. I don’t think people subscribe to their local newspaper because they want to read about some egotistical conservative who has enough money to get his view out in the forefront.

On the upside, a reader wrote a letter making the same complaint I did.

The Sept. 10 edition of the Kennebec Journal devoted 30 column inches to the “anti-gay vow rally” planned for the following Sunday, featuring a banner headline on page one. President Barack Obama’s address on health-insurance legislation to a joint session of Congress rated 20 column inches on page 3.

Is something wrong with this picture?

A cynic might guess that the new owner of the KJ favors repeal of the law allowing gay couples to marry, and doesn’t support the president’s push to find a way to end our tragic health-care mess.

That viewpoint should appear on the editorial page, not in lopsided coverage on the news pages.

Jon Lund

Hallowell

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Let freedom ring

Posted on March 16, 2009 by Michael

Freedom of information, that is.

I recently gave an update on my experience using the Maine Freedom of Information Access Act. On two separate occasions I got stonewalled by some Lieutenant who was not familiar with the act (nor with humility). Eventually, the city manager gave me the information. A couple of days later I got this (emphasis added).

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

I have been advised you have made contact twice this week with Lt. J. Chris Read requesting copies of any disciplinary action taken against Officer Richard Dubois. I am now aware that you made your first request on Monday, Mark 9th and returned on Wednesday, March 11th. Each time you received a verbal denial from Lt. Read advising that the information you were requesting is confidential as personnel records are confidential.

I must apologize that as you are aware, should there be a final written decision relating to a disciplinary action taken against an employee, that information is not confidential and you would have a right to access of that information. Your request should have been handled differently and following a review of the individual’s personnel file, you should have been advised that there are no disciplinary action documents in the file. I have personally checked the officer’s personnel file and can state that there are no disciplinary documents of any kind in the file.

As a result of how your request for information was handled by a member of my staff, I have undertaken a review of our procedures pertaining to public access to records. All Police Supervisors are to review our Standard Operating Procedure, Public Access to Records, to ensure that a request for information is handled properly.

Again, there is no information pertaining to disciplinary action regarding Officer Richard Dubois to provide to you per your request. I am truly sorry for the inconvenience you have experienced.

Sincerely

Chief Wayne M McCamish

Quality response. This covers the department from the $500 fine to which Lt. Read potentially subjected them since it covers both my requests within 5 business days of receiving them. While it would have been interesting to see the whole process of a fine being assessed to either the police department or the city itself, I’m far happier to see that the law was followed correctly. Regardless, I’ve contacted a local paper to see if they’re interested in having me write this story for them (I’ve written for them in the past [usually about local hiking]).

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Being right feels so good

Posted on March 13, 2009 by Michael

I recently wrote about my experience obtaining information using the Maine Freedom of Information Access Act. I wanted any “final written decisions” relating to a local police officers disciplinary record. Another officer told me that was not public information. He asserted that his 20 years of experience trumps what the law actually (and explicitly) says. In short, the man was largely ignorant of the law – and too stubborn to admit it even when faced with undeniable evidence.

After going to the City Manager, I received a letter in the mail. Here is the body of it.

I am in receipt of your request for copies of all disciplinary action taken against Officer Richard Dubois. I have reviewed the officer’s personnel file and find no records of disciplinary action. Augusta Police Department Officers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement which prevents written disciplinary action from remaining in an officer’s personnel file in excess of two (2) years unless a similar violation has occurred (relevant language enclosed).

As an aside, I noticed your internal posting this afternoon and enjoyed it. I recommend your journalism professor give you an “A”!

In other words, I am absolutely right that the information for which I asked is public. It just so happens that the information is only left in personnel files for a certain period of time, i.e., some of the stuff I wanted simply does not physically exist any longer (assuming it did at all). For the time when the information does exist, Officer Dubois has had no disciplinary actions taken against him.

Oh, what to do now, what to do now. I can take the high road and enjoy that feeling of being vindicated humbly (minus this current indulgence). Alternatively, I can request the information of Lt. Read and be sure to post it. In addition, I can also be sure the local newspaper hears about this. Furthermore, I can be sure to explore all possible avenues as they related to the officer/police department being fined for not issuing me the required letter explaining why they feel the need to break the law. Guess which road this persistent defender of rights is going to take?

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Maine Freedom of Information Access Act

Posted on March 12, 2009 by Michael

There is a law in Maine similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act. It allows the public to access information that is produced through government agencies (with notable exceptions). Many states have similar laws on the books, all varying in one manner or another. One of these states is Massachusetts. Recently, the Boston Globe used the act in order to obtain the disciplinary record of asshat trooper Michael Galluccio. This gave me an idea.

I am currently taking a journalism class because I was too slow at signing up for the classes I actually wanted (though I am enjoying this class). One of my assignments is to obtain information using Maine’s FOIA. Until I saw the Galluccio story, I was at a loss of what to do. However, with the knowledge that disciplinary records are public information in one state, I decided to pursue the record of a particular officer at the Augusta Police Department in hopes that Maine law is sufficiently similar.

Backstory: Sometime ago in high school I got a parking ticket. I was parked at the end of a series of spaces where there were yellow diagonal lines. Clearly, I was illegally parked. I do not dispute that. However, on the ticket the officer wrote “sidewalk”, indicating that the reasoning for the ticket was that I was parked on the nearby sidewalk. This was not the case. 1) Those yellow lines would not extend to a public sidewalk. 2) I went to City Hall and obtained a property blueprint for my school. It was clear that I was not on the sidewalk. I brought this to the attention of several officers, including the one who issued the ticket. Of course, they refused to admit they were wrong. It would be one thing to give me a ticket I technically deserved. Unfortunately, what they did is issue me a ticket for an offense I did not commit. It would be like arresting someone for assault who actually committed theft. The sentence (for the sake of argument) may be roughly the same, but that does not mean that the thief is guilty of something else simply because the result is similar. Just the same, I was never guilty of parking on a sidewalk. The ticket is bunk.

So fast forward to my journalism class and the Globe article and I’ve got my idea. I am going to get the disciplinary record of the officer who issued me the incorrect ticket. I make out a FOIA letter (which is a courtesy, not a required form) and head on down to the APD. I am told by Lt. J. Christopher Read that personnel files are not public information. Bummer, right? Possibly. I follow this up with a call to the Globe. They say he is almost certainly wrong. I then also ask my instructor. She says basically the same thing. I go the next necessary step and find the exact wording in the act.

Personnel records pertaining to municipal, county, and state employees are for the most part confidential. For example, complaints, charges or accusations of misconduct, replies to those complaints, charges or accusations and any other information or materials that may result in disciplinary action are confidential. However, if disciplinary action is taken, the final written decision relating to that action is no longer confidential after the decision is completed if it imposes or upholds discipline.

It is clear. If a state employee is disciplined and there is a final written decision, it is public information. I am entitled to it. Now armed with this information, I make some corrections. First, I obtain the name of the offending officer. I originally only knew him as Officer 135. I now know his name is Richard Dubois. I also change my timeframe. I originally asked for all records dating to January 2001. I figured that covered a couple of years prior to my ticket and it also wasn’t so much as to be a pain in the butt. Because I was given incorrect information, however, I have updated my timeframe to date to either 1990 or Richard Dubois’ date of hiring; if they’re going to make me do extra work, I’m going to return the favor.

I bring my updated information back to the APD and speak with Lt. Read again. I present my new letter and read, verbatim, the part of the act I have bolded above. He tells me personnel files are off limits. I again inform him that the exception is when disciplinary action is taken. He tells me that is simply my interpretation and he has been “at this for 20 years”. In other words, the explicit text that says “if disciplinary action is taken, the final written decision relating to that action is no longer confidential” can be interpreted to mean something other than, well, that final written decisions related to disciplinary action are not confidential. One wonders what Lt. Read thinks it means. I guess 20 years on the job gives a person super special reading skills and insights. Or it makes them stubborn. Draw your own conclusion.

After it has become clear that Lt. Read is not going to give me the information to which I have a law-given right, I inform him that he needs to give me a written response within 5 business days because the law clearly states that to be the case. He says – and I quote – “I’m not going to do that.” I then ask him if he is aware that there is a $500 fine associated with violating the act and he says “That’s fine.” I presume that is code for “I acknowledge the fact you have just told me, but I do not want to admit that I am ignorant of a tremendous amount of this law.” I then ask Lt. Read if he wants a copy of my letter. My intention here is quite kind, if I do flatter myself: the man is wrong and I know he is wrong. If he checks with other supervisors or simply reads the law, he may realize this. Without my letter, he will not be able to contact me and will thus be forced into violating the law. He says he does not want it. I inform him that I have an identical letter addressed to the City Manager, William Bridgeo.

Once I leave, I head over to City Hall. Mr. Bridgeo was in a meeting but I gave all this information to the clerk/secretary/whathaveyou in the office. She asks for the name of the officer who refused to give a written response, makes copies of my letters along with my excerpt of the act, and tells me that, yes, a written response is required. (She said 10 days, but seemed unsure and soon qualified that it may depend on the information requested. At any rate, a written response is required.)

Further information: I originally saw Lt. Read on Monday, March 9, 2009. I saw him next, new letter (and different dates) in hand on Wednesday, March 11, 2009. He has 5 (or 10) business days to give me a written response to my first request. The second request is being handled by a more responsible entity.

Lt. J. Christopher Read of the Augusta Police Department in Augusta, Maine

Lt. J. Christopher Read of the Augusta Police Department in Augusta, Maine

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Drink of my blood

Posted on February 22, 2009 by Michael

Just a notice people living in the Augusta area that there will be a blood drive on March 9. Here is the information. A few more results for the area (and other parts of the country as well) can be found here.

Penney Memorial Church 1038 Perkins Hall
35 Grove St
Augusta, ME 04330

Because giving blood is far more effective than pretending to drink it. UPDATE: Here’s a thought. PZ Myers had a whole big deal where he desecrated a Catholic wafer. It was to prove a point that nothing is sacred (basically). But instead of a wafer, how about dumping out some blessed ‘blood of Christ’ outside a donation location? It’d be especially poignant to do it outside a church. But this time the point wouldn’t be that nothing is sacred but rather that deep belief, prayer, and silly rituals* are far less effective than simply being a good person and doing good things (for example, like actually helping people by giving them real blood).

*To be fair, PZ surely mocked these things as well throughout wafer-gate.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

More Michael Heath mumbo

Posted on December 19, 2008 by Michael

He’s full of mumbo. Jumbo, too.

A lot of teenagers are unable to speak with their parents about sex. Either it’s awkward or they’re made to feel bad about their desires because of the irrationality of religion or some other shallow thought. But, of course, Michael Heath of the Maine Family Policy Council embraces shallow thought. He favors changing the current law in Maine concerning parental consent for birth control and other sexual reproductive health issues.

Maine law has allowed minors contraception without parental consent for more than 30 years, but the issue was brought back to the forefront last fall when the Portland School Committee voted to allow contraceptives to be given to girls at the school as part of the services offered at a city-run health center in the school.

…

Mike Heath, executive director of the Maine Family Policy Council which supported Smith’s attempts to limit the confidentiality law last session, believes Family Planning is working to hard to protect the current law because it fails to align with public sentiment.

“The public knows the Maine Family Planning Association is wrong,” Heath said this week. “The MFPA is holding the public forums because they are selling something the public has no interest in buying. The public knows that good laws honor the nobility of sex inside of marriage and the danger of fornication.”

(The MFPA is sponsoring public forums on the issue.)

Oh, Mikey. The state has no business “honoring” sexual practices within the purely legal, purely secular contract of marriage. As such, it does not do this. What’s more interesting here, however, is how childish Heath’s views on sex really are. By denying minors the right to their reproductive health, “the danger of fornification” is actually increased. What’s more, Maine law allows for a person as young as 14 to consent to sex as long as the other person is within 5 years of age. At the age of 16, a person may consent to sex with a person of any age, from 14 to 140, it’s legal. So if Heath is right (his track record says he isn’t) and minors need to get parental consent for their reproductive health issues, then that undermines Maine law. That is, Maine law states a person is responsible enough, in the eyes of the state, to engage in sexual activity at that aforementioned age levels. Forcing consent would imply that, no, these people are not responsible enough. Essentially, the freedom to engage in sex within the prescribed laws would disappear because the sexual activity of a 17 year old would become the responsibility of his or her parents.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

« Previous Page