Pop off already

Peter Popoff. Do you know who that is? His website is definitely something worth gawking at; go ahead and take a peek if you like. If you haven't heard of him, I'm sure you've heard about one of his colleagues in the profession - the profession of faith healing.

There are a few very twisted characters who have claimed to be faith healers: Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, and (my personal favorite) Pat Robertson. Books have been written about the swindling these scumbags have carried out on poor, simple-minded folk. They claim to heal the sick using divine powers. Usually it's cases of arthritis or fatigue ... or interestingly cancer - these are either subjective pain symptoms which can be temporarily ameliorated by adrenaline rushes, or they can't be seen and causative effect be established. Instead of trying to write at great length about it, I'd rather share with you some of the story of Peter Popoff.

James Randi (one of my heroes) fought the good fight and exposed Peter Popoff for the charlatan that he was back in the 1980s. Take a look here:



Now, you might watch this and think about how great the world is that we have protectors who can dispel the archaic mysticism of witch doctors. But you'll be sorry to see what 'Rev.' Popoff is up to these days.



Who can use protectors (like James Randi) when people are foolish enough to get involved with the snake oil salesman all over again? And why is Entertainment Tonight doing the current expose? Where is the FTC?

And people say that nothing bad can come from believing in a god. All evidence is to the contrary. When your worldview is not based on evidence, but on feelings, then you use feelings to justify all sorts of things, and other people will use your feelings against you.

The real life of fictional characters

One of the biggest problems with the christian god of the contemporary era is that he/she/it is boring. Always lovey-dovey and only associated with nice things. I much prefer the sordid tales of the greek and roman gods of old. They blessed others when in good moods and cursed them when having a bad day - a much more normal response to living, normal like the way humans actually behave.

I can't help but share this brilliant rendition of the real life of some of our favorite fictional characters ... in rehab! The infamous Bo Burnham:

Huge teratoma of the WHAT?!

Just published in the Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery is an article entitled "Huge teratoma of the face". That's right - the face.

It looks to be about as painful as it sounds too. Below and on the left is a picture of the 4-month old infant with the rapidly growing tumor (right before surgery); on the right is a picture of the girl at seven years of age (way after the surgery).

As the authors state:

The case we report was entirely benign, did not relate to vital structures and had no intracranial extension.

This made it possible to surgically remove the tumor without there being permanent damage to any vital function. As you can see from the images below, even the bones of the face were distorted by the growing mass.


A teratoma is the kind of tumor that I study in mice. We have a mouse model for testicular teratomas. These mice have a mutation in a particular gene that renders the protein made from that gene to not work. This causes misregulation of the germ cells (the cells that colonize the gonad and eventually give rise to sperm in the testis). In this particular mouse, the misregulation leads to a teratoma.

Teraomas have long fascinated biologists by their ability to grow incredibly fast and show amazing signs of organization and differentiation. They are thought to arise from very powerful, or pluripotent, cells such as germ cells. In this case, instead of colonizing the gonad, a germ cells got off course and wound up in the head and neck region. Normally if this kind of misguidance happens the cell can't survive and dies off. But sometimes (rarely) it doesn't die off, and instead begins to grow and develop outside of the proper environment. Overall, teratoma formation is a relatively rare sort of tumor, especially in the face.

Nevertheless, this demonstrates the power of the cells that make up your germline and give rise to your gametes. Remember that gametes (spermatocytes and oocytes) combine to give rise to the next generation. That power is harnessed very carefully by nature, and sometimes things go wrong. This study is a case in point.

I get comments

Yay for people who read my blog! All three of you now. :-)

In a recent blog post I shared an exchange that occurred on my facebook wall - between a girl (and her husband) from my home church and myself ... a rather unsolicited exchange where a lot of religious nonsense was splattered about on my wall that I felt compelled to clean up.

Part of the reason for sharing this (and having a blog in general) is to express thoughts that are important to me, open a forum to discuss these topics, evaluate critiques and criticisms, re-define/re-articulate my views, and change them based on new evidence.

I've received comments from like-minded bloggers before, but on this recent post I finally got some criticism from an opposing view. I greatly appreciate thinking about other views and wanted to respond to what the gentleman had commented. You can find his comment on the original post but it will be reproduced in parts below.

Mike writes:

Dang Matt,

It seems like this irritating woman and her husband genuinely care about you, and noticed a change in your behavior since denouncing your past and moving ahead to the unknown.

They care less about me and more about a deity's salvation for me. If they really cared about me, they would have taken a more private approach - even Matthew chapter 18 talks about taking a brother aside to air grievances in private, not in public. If they had actually stopped to ask me how my life is, or where I'm at philosophically in the journey, they would have been able to discern a lot more than what they initially speculated from a single sentence on a facebook status.

Surprised that you threw a celebration for Darwin, when you used to be such an avent participator in the church, she must have been confused as to why you posted the comment.

Why would a celebration for Darwin's birthday necessarily be mutually exclusive with high attendance at church (I trust that he meant 'avid' instead of 'avent')? There are many people who embrace reason and yet hold out, in a deistic sense, for something still to be discovered. Acclaiming science and reason does not necessarily preclude one person from participating in a culturual phenomenon even - besides, it is poor form to assume that everyone who goes to church must be a fervent believer in that religious faith. Belief for most people is not so black and white. I'm acquainted with many people who attend church frequently but haven't really decided exactly what they believe in.

As a guy who doesn't believe in the the Bible or any of its teachings, you probably don't show much compassion to others unless they're your parents or people who share your belief in ... well ... nothing.

The errors abound here - let's take them in order. Firstly, there are some, mind you SOME, teachings in the christian canon that are worth taking to heart and putting into practice. There are many others that are detestable, particularly in the old testament, but plenty abound in the new testament as well. In some places the bible preaches justice, beneficience, non-maleficence towards others - I embrace these principles and actively demonstrate them as best I can. In other places the bible preaches magic, slavery, bigotry, mysogeny, homophobia - these are values to which I do not subscribe. Simply because I deny the divinity (magic) of the christian bible does not mean it cannot be scrutinized as a literary work and much be gained in the way of knowledge - but frankly Shakespeare has taught me as much about morals as the bible has.

Secondly, I feel compassion for others quite frequently - it can only be hoped that others see this borne out through my actions. Don't confuse my sharp criticism in the former post with a neglectful eye towards the well-being of her or her family. I've found that it's usually only religious people who muster up some compassion to help those willing to accept their magical drivvel. A parent who compels their child to stop believing in childish things and grow up does not love them any less than a parent who spoils their child - I would argue that the former shows more compassion.

Lastly, Mike seems to think that agnosticism is the belief in 'nothing'. It shows how much he's really thought about what it means to be agnostic. Denying magical thinking doesn't mean I believe in nothing ... I believe in REALITY. You can call me a naturalist, a humanist, even a natural empiricist, but I'm not even quite sure how an individual believes in 'nothing'. It's sad that so many religious believers think that it's either a 'god' or 'nothing'. It demonstrates how reinforcing religion can be, and how effective preachers can be at purporting this false dichotomy. I believe that questions about where we came from, where we are going as a species, and how we arrived at this place in time are all very important questions that religion has done nothing to help with - science has provided us with the best answers to these questions so far.

"You can quote the Godfather all day; but I'm the real gangster," says a pretty famous comedian. Sounds kind of random, but you can quote the Bible all day - even participate fervently in the church - but completely miss the point on the meaning of Christianity.

And I'm sure you haven't missed the point? You can talk about magical thinking all day - even pretend that magic is real - but completely miss the point that being defined as a christian means belief in magical nonsense: virgin births, resurrections, walking on water, etc. If you don't buy into that stuff, then face it - you're a christ follower not a christian ... HUGE difference. One believes the world is 6000 years old and the other has no problem understanding the basic principles of life that are used every day in labs around the world to cure disease and ameliorate suffering. Mike wanted to mention compassion; it doesn't get more compassionate than eradicating smallpox, developing antibiotics, or making vaccines against cancer causing viruses. Remind me again, did religion or science solve those problems?

It seems like you're a well-educated, however misguided young man; and by "well-educated," I mean you can regurgitate information that people have already discovered. In your exploration of knowledge, I'd like to know what you actually hold as truth. Instead of ranting on the well-intentioned comments of others, why not thank them for their opinion and move on. It seems like you're so much better than them anyway.

I mean jeez, you study balls for a living. You surely have a lot to talk about.

Mike

I wonder if Mike thinks I'm misguided because I don't accept jesus christ as my lord and savior. I wonder if he can tell me why he doesn't believe in the jewish god, or the muslim god, or the mormon god, or zeus, or thor, or the aliens of scientology. It seems that Mike has regurgitated what he's heard in a religious setting, and ineptly applied it to my beliefs/actions. I think I've done a pretty good job at explicating what I hold as truth, both here and in other places on my blog. I'm not sure if Mike was trying to get a jab in with, 'It seems like you're so much better than them anyway'. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose that he's implying I have a lot of other things to talk about.

Indeed, I study balls for a living. And speaking of which, I need to get into lab to go mount and take pictures of the mouse gonads that are incubating ... sounds delightful, no?

As always, further thoughts and comments are welcome. Just remember that I don't believe in magic, so if you do, it would help me in understanding if you could explain why you do.