Australian Universities Defend Alternative-Medicine Teaching

Universities in Australia are defending their teaching of alternative medicine after a group of the country’s top scientists and doctors urged them to abandon this increasingly popular subject.

Friends of Science in Medicine — a recently formed group that includes more than 400 prominent scientists, doctors, academics and consumer advocates from Australia and overseas — wrote to the vice chancellors of Australian universities last month. They outlined their concerns about what they called the “diminishing of the standards applied to the teaching of science in our universities” and “the increased teaching of pseudoscience.”

The vice chancellors were asked in the letter to help reverse “the trend which sees government-funded tertiary institutions offering courses in the health care sciences that are not underpinned by convincing scientific evidence.”

“Such courses involve so-called ‘complementary or alternative medicine’ masquerading as, and sitting side-by-side with, evidence-based health-related science courses,” the letter said.

It added that universities were risking their reputations by teaching courses like chiropractic, homeopathy, iridology and reflexology.

“We take the view that those universities involved in teaching pseudoscience,” the letter said, “give such ideologies undeserved credibility, damage their academic standing and put the public at risk.”

The group says that 19 of Australia’s 39 universities offer degrees or courses in alternative health care. Such universities have asserted that their courses are legitimate.

Macquarie University, which is in Sydney and offers bachelor’s and master’s degrees in chiropractic science, said it offered rigorous, high-quality courses.

“Our chiropractic science students are well trained in the fundamental relevant sciences (physiology, anatomy, biochemistry, biophysics, radiology, etc.) together with units in chiropractic methods and clinical practice,” the university said in a statement. “Our students are taught to understand that science proceeds only on the basis of evidence. We are confident that our graduates have been taught those techniques that are known through science to be beneficial.”

Nick Klomp, dean of the science faculty at Charles Sturt University, in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, said while Friends in Science in Medicine made some valid points, the degree offered at his university, a bachelor of health science (complementary medicine), was based on science.

He said the course was designed to impart evidence-based science to people who already had a qualification, like a diploma, in alternative health care. The course includes such subjects as biology and physiology.

“They’re all subjects that are already mainstream, hard health science subjects,” Mr. Klomp said.

He said that thousands of practitioners were already providing alternative medicine and that there was much demand for their services.

“I could ignore them or I could train them better,” Mr. Klomp said, adding that a majority of the university’s students were already practicing. “We actually create graduates who are much better health care providers. It’s all about evidence based, science based.”

Murdoch University, in Perth, said it was committed to the promotion of research-led teaching and evidence-based practice across all disciplines, and that its School of Chiropractic and Sports Science was “established to be consistent with that approach.”

“Students are taught the science-practitioner model and our aim is to produce graduates who are critical thinkers,” the university said in a statement. “This enables them to distinguish between fad and genuine innovation in the discipline as practitioners, intelligent consumers of research and promoters of the scientific method. A clear distinction is made in all of our courses between areas for which the evidence is clear and those in which the science has not caught up with accepted practice and where sufficient evidence has yet to be accumulated.”

Universities Australia, which represents the country’s universities, said in a statement that the schools were “self-accrediting institutions with the autonomy and capacity to ensure the quality and relevance of the courses they offer.”

John Dwyer, co-founder of Friends of Science in Medicine and an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales, said the academics had decided to form the group because of concerns about the growing number of courses in alternative medicine and their rising popularity among students.

“For many of us, we’ve been concerned for a long time that in this most scientific of all ages, pseudoscience seems to be flourishing,” he said in a telephone interview.

Mr. Dwyer said more than 50 scientists from Britain, the United States and Canada involved in similar efforts had expressed their support for the Australian group.

“It’s becoming an international effort,” he said, adding that the British government withdrew government funding for alternative-medicine courses in January.

David Colquhoun, a professor of pharmacology at University College London who has called for ending of alternative-medicine programs in Britain, is a member of the Australian group.

“Courses in alternative medicine are dishonest, they teach things that aren’t true, and things that are dangerous to patients in some cases,” Mr. Colquhoun said in a statement.

Emphasizing that the group was not opposed to universities’ conducting research into different fields, Mr. Dwyer said the scientists were urging the vice chancellors to review the teaching of these courses and come up with a statement on the issue when they meet in March.

Source http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/australian-universities-defend-alternative-medicine-teaching.html?_r=1

Why are Tories so determined to defend the F-35?

Even Stephen Harper’s detractors will acknowledge – after a few libations and with no microphones in view – that the prime minister has generally shown a deft hand in foreign affairs. Indeed, along with economic management, this has become one of Harper’s greatest strengths.

So why, some in and around Ottawa wonder, is the Harper government so dead-set on championing the much-delayed, expensive and controversial F-35 fighter purchase, even as the project takes on ever more ballast?

Day after day in the House, opposition MPs pose pointed, scathing questions about why the government has “sole-sourced” this estimated $16-billion (including maintenance costs) purchase from U.S. aircraft maker Lockheed-Martin, with no competitive tender. Day after day a trio of ministers – up to and including the PM himself – deliver wan responses, looking unhappy as they do so.

Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians doubt whether ultra-high-tech new fighters should be a priority. The government’s three stock arguments in their defence – it was the Liberals who launched the program in the late 1990s, our pilots deserve the best, and the industrial spinoffs will be huge – look weak, in an era of looming budget cuts.

International support for the joint strike fighter has gone wobbly. The Turks are out, because of a disagreement over rights to the F-35’s critically important software source code. Australia is buying Boeing Super Hornets. Norway has delayed its purchase. The British are reviewing their purchase of more than 100 F-35B models – the JSF’s vertical landing variant. And there are rumblings that the Italians may soon do the same, if they can order any planes at all, given their debt woes.

As if all that weren’t bad enough, the U.S. military – on the hook for 2,443 F35s, at an estimated cost of $380-billion (US) – is under siege because of America’s own debt crisis. There is rampant speculation the Pentagon itself will soon be forced to curtail its order. Because pricing is based on economies of scale, that would change the game for every other member of the consortium, including Canada. As orders get reduced, the price per plane goes up.

Therefore, why so dogged? Here’s a partial answer. The growing turmoil, itself, is one reason why the Harper government remains grimly at the table.

Source http://blogs.canada.com/2011/11/17/why-are-harper-tories-so-doggedly-determined-to-defend-the-f-35/

Gazette opinion: Build pipeline to supply U.S. with friendly fuel

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is not a risk-free project. However, there are risks in not building this oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas.

The United States needs oil. We consume more than we produce and we put ourselves and our military members at risk to defend distant, unstable sources of oil.

Conservation and energy efficiency must become a higher priority for our great nation. But we won’t be able to conserve away our oil import demand in the foreseeable future.

In a guest opinion printed Sept. 26 on this page, a Canadian diplomat noted that construction of the pipeline is expected to create “5,531 person-years of employment and $7.5 million in state tax revenues” in Montana.

“Both Canada and the United States are moving towards reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but this transition, while necessary, will take time,” Landan Amirazizi wrote from Denver. “Until we sufficiently reduce demand and secure alternative sources that can meet our requirements, turn to Canada.”

A 1,700-mile pipeline from Canada’s oil sands north of the Montana border is a reasonable, necessary source of dependable oil supply.

Montana onramp

Montana has strong interests in this project, which would cross 284 miles of the state from the Port of Morgan north of Malta to a pointsoutheast of Baker. Gov. Brian Schweitzer insisted that the project include an onramp near Baker to transport Montana and North Dakota crude to oil refineries in Oklahoma and Texas.

Last fall, TransCanada’s “open season” drew commitments for shipping 65,000 barrels a day from the Bakken oil play. Dave Galt, executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, said last week that he expects the full 100,000-barrel-per-day onramp capacity will be used once it becomes available.

“This is a big deal for the Williston Basin,” said Tad True of Bridger Pipeline, which has oil pipelines in Eastern Montana. True said the Keystone XL onramp would give this oil-producing region a direct connection to Cushing, Okla., the largest oil market in the world, and it would increase the basin’s overall export capacity.

The Keystone XL pipeline is projected to create tens of thousands of constructions jobs nationwide as well as refinery jobs in Texas. That’s what brought out much of the crowd at a Glendive hearing Tuesday. Union workers and local government leaders voiced support for the pipeline as a job creator.

After completion, the pipeline would generate millions of dollars annually in property taxes for the counties through which it passes and for the state as a whole.

The Gazette has printed dozens of letters from readers for and against the pipeline. Concerns about the danger of leaks and fairness to landowners whose property the pipeline would cross must be addressed in the pipeline permit.

Environmental protection

TransCanada officials have pledged to build this pipeline to the highest safety standards. State and federal regulators must hold the company to that commitment.

TransCanada should provide the emergency response plan that some landowners and neighbors have called for.

The Keystone XL project has been exhaustively studied. An environmental impact statement, nearly three years in the making, found that the pipeline wouldn’t significantly affect the environment.

The EIS includes 57 conditions covering construction materials, pipeline pressure, temperature, reporting requirements and many other points. Those conditions should be part of the permit to ensure that the project runs as safely as possible.

The governments of Canada and the United States have required oil producers to reduce pollution. Additional technology is needed to make oil sands less polluting.

However, lack of better pollution controls isn’t reason to veto this project. If this oil doesn’t flow through the Keystone XL pipeline, it will get to market another way, and probably go to developing nations far from U.S. shores.

The final decision is up to President Barack Obama. We call on the president to support this project for a safer, more dependable source of oil and for the construction jobs that it would start generating next year.

Source http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_1c687d98-aa73-58f5-896d-580623fa9652.html

Without a navy, Canada won't matter

Canada's coastlines are the longest in the world. Canada's economy relies on safe passage for our exports, and Canada's allies depend on our support at sea. Canada has a big stake in the Pacific Ocean, where the new studs of the political world are starting to flex their naval power. All of which makes one wonder about the indifference with which the Harper government is treating Canada's navy -the abandoned child of the Canadian Forces.

The government is committed to F-35 jet fighters for the air force. It has taken a number of measures to replenish the army, which has captured a lot of attention during our mission to landlocked Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the navy continues to rust out. There is now little hope of plugging what are fast becoming huge gaps in Canada's capacity to defend our interests off our coasts and on the high seas.

Here's one example. When naval formations go to sea, they need destroyers to supply air defence in case of an attack on frigates and other ships. Only destroyers can supply this defence as well as play a leadership role (command and control) in missions involving more than one ship. Without destroyers, a country's fleet becomes much more vulnerable.

The process to replace Canada's four destroyers should have begun long ago. One -the Huron -has already rusted out and was retired from the fleet in 2005. Canada needs at least two new destroyers on each coast to ensure that one is always available. This should be an urgent issue, but it is met with silence.

Instead the government has prioritized the procurement of six to eight Arctic coastal patrol vessels which can only operate in northern waters for four months a year -the last thing the navy or anyone else needs. With only feeble icebreaking capacity and low speed (only enough to keep up with most fishing trawlers), these ships will be expensive and ineffectual window-dressing for Arctic sovereignty claims that will be sorted out in the courts, not in battle.

There has been no recent action on the much-ballyhooed Joint Supply Ships that are supposed to replace Canada's aged refuelling vessels and provide support for army deployments around the world. We need four of them -again, two on each coast. The government originally promised three, then balked at the cost last summer and said two should do. Wrong. That will mean a void on one coast or the other during refits. This can't be avoided or denied by the government, so they just don't talk about it.

Meanwhile, our coasts are vulnerable to visiting freighters planting mines in our waters and then disappearing over the horizon. Imagine a ship from a hostile force dropping mines in the West coast waters off Prince Rupert and Vancouver -mines that won't surface and activate until six months after the ship that laid them has disappeared. Not only does Canada not have sufficient surveillance capacity to determine who laid the mines, we don't have the capacity to sweep those mines away. These delayedaction mines are a legitimate threat -one we're not paying attention to.

The government seems to have convinced itself that Canada doesn't really need a navy -a stunning thought given all those coastlines and our proximity to the Pacific theatre, likely to become the world's next military hot spot. Navies transport armies and provide invaluable logistical and firepower support for ground troops in conflicts in countries with coastlines -which means just about everywhere but Afghanistan. Indeed, the mere presence of naval vessels off a country's coast can pre-empt land battles that place troops in great danger.

Navies intercept threats before they get to our coasts. Navies counter piracy. They provide emergency assistance in places like Haiti. Navies help countries like Canada pull their weight in alliances with countries we are going to need if our international interests are threatened.

Countries with navies matter. Countries without them matter mostly to themselves. Canada is never going to rule the world. But while defending itself it can help keep the world from falling apart. Without a navy, we can't pull our weight on the global stage. If the government wants Canada to matter, it needs to take the navy seriously.

Source http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Without+navy+Canada+matter/5105615/story.html

Midwives defend their actions

In the face of a PR nightmare following the death of a baby, Quebec midwives who have been fighting for years for acceptance and recognition again find themselves on the defensive.

However, they are hoping questions that arose after a newborn died at a Pointe Claire birthing centre are an opportunity to set the record straight.

“It’s terrible. My first thoughts last week were, ‘Oh dear, this is so ugly,’ ” said Claudia Faille, president of the Regroupement des sages-femmes du Québec, a non-profit group that speaks on behalf of the province’s midwives.

“We’ve been working so hard for the last 10 years to have midwifery accessible to the whole population and then this happens, and public opinion is affected.

“We just want the facts made public,” Faille said, referring to misleading information about the circumstances in the death of a newborn on June 21 at the West Island Health and Social Services Centre birthing centre.

Faced with an impending complication in the birth, the centre had placed a 911 call at 9:12 a.m. to transfer a woman with labour complications.

The baby, however, was born before the fire department’s first responder team arrived, and the centre barred them from entering.

Centre director Christiane Léonard told them that the baby was in cardiac distress and three midwives were attempting to revive and stabilize him while the facility awaited specialized neonatal transport from the Montreal Children’s Hospital.

Outraged, a fire department responder threatened to break down the door and then called the police, who arrived followed by Urgences Santé paramedics.

Her staff did nothing wrong professionally, Léonard said, and the standoff with the first responders should never have happened.

“That’s a strong image,” Faille said. “Even people who know me said: ‘You didn’t let them in?’ ”

But that’s only half the story, Faille said.

The police and firemen do not understand the role of midwives, she said.

The fact is, midwives are the first responders and they’re trained in advanced neonatal resuscitation while firemen and ambulance technicians are not, Faille said.

“It’s absolutely not their place. Access was rightfully denied – they’re not trained for that,” Faille said.

The centre has an agreement with 911 for transfers and the firemen should not have been deployed, Faille said. “It was a dispatch mistake.”

Birthing centres have all the necessary equipment and medication to intubate and resuscitate a newborn while waiting for the neonatal transfer team.

First responders would never threaten to break down a door of a hospital, Faille added.

Intervention from their team would not have saved the baby, she said.

“We’re going to have to work at getting the facts out. Babies die in a hospital every day and we never hear about it but because it’s a midwife, it’s a big thing,” Faille said.

The practice continues to suffer from lack of acceptance, she said.

“I don’t know why the reaction. But if you look at (the) neonatal mortality rate, we always say it’s similar to doctors in hospitals,” Faille said, which is 4.2 deaths per 1,000 births.

“It’s important to get the right information out so this never happens again,” Faille said.

The Quebec coroner, police and the provincial order of midwives have launched investigations into emergency protocol at the centre.

About 25 per cent of women surveyed last year said they would choose to give birth outside a hospital if they could.

Officially reintroduced in Canada in the 1990s, midwifery is answering a real need for perinatal care, Faille said.

But there are wait-lists, she added. Three out of four women who request midwife services are refused in the Montreal area because the services are not available.

Source http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Midwives+defend+their+actions/5026910/story.html

Canadian BitTorrent User Fined $60,000 By U.S. Court

A new dimension was just added to the ongoing stream of BitTorrent lawsuits in the U.S. A Canadian BitTorrent user has been ordered to pay $60,000 by a U.S. District Court judge. The Calgary resident, who did not defend himself, was ordered to pay the damages for sharing two films on an adult-oriented BitTorrent tracker.

Over the last year several mass-lawsuits were started against so-called ‘John Doe’ defendants, who are only identified by their IP-address. However, at the same time a handful of copyright holders have also launched cases against named BitTorrent users.

One of these defendants was the Calgary, Canada-based Alan Phillips. The adult entertainment studio Corbin Fisher filed suit against Phillips, who they claim had illicitly shared two of their movies (“Turner F***s Austin” and “Keagan” ) on the BitTorrent tracker Gaytorrents.ru. 

While most BitTorrent sites treat the private information of their users confidentially, the Gaytorrent.ru operator kindly provided the copyright holder with information that could identify the defendant. 

  

According to information previously received by TorrentFreak, this is not the first time that GayTorrent has handed over the personal details of a member to a copyright holder without being required to by law.

This compliance by GayTorrent allows Corbin Fisher to directly target defendants, instead of having to ask the court for a subpoena.

In the initial complaint Corbin Fisher alleged that Phillips willingly infringed on its copyright, and the studio’s lawyer Marc Randazza asked U.S. District Court judge John Houston to award $50,000 in damages per movie, totaling 100,000. Although Phillips complained to the court in an attempt to get the case dismissed, he did not defend himself.

Due to Phillips absence, Judge Houston was left with no choice but to order a default judgement as requested by the plaintiff.

In his ruling Judge Houston rejects the studio’s claim that the infringement was willful, just because Phillips was savvy enough to use BitTorrent. This reduced the maximum damages from $150,000 to $30,000 per movie.

Judge Houston did, however, rule that Phillips was guilty of copyright infringement.

“The record, as presented does not support a finding of willfulness based solely on plaintiff’s speculative argument that BitTorrent requires technical knowledge such that a person using the application necessarily used it in order to defraud plaintiff.” 

“Thus, this Court finds that the increase in statutory damages suggested by plaintiff is not appropriately assessed here. In this Court’s view, statutory damages of $30,000 per infringed work, for a total of $60,000 plus attorneys’ fees is reasonable.”

In total Alan Phillips was ordered to pay $63,867, which makes it one of the largest fines ever handed out to a P2P user in the U.S. Certainly the highest we know of where a foreign copyright infringer was targeted.

“There are too many canadians who are under the mistaken impression that Canada does not respect copyrights,” lawyer Marc Randazza told TorrentFreak in a comment. 

“Canada is a signatory to international copyright treaties, and thus Canadians need to learn that the border does not insulate them from illegal activity,” 

“My client is delighted with the verdict,” he added. 

Source   http://torrentfreak.com/canadian-bittorrent-user-fined-60000-by-u-s-court-110615/

Paratroopers defend airborne

Members of the international brotherhood of paratroopers are defending the disbanded Canadian Airborne Regiment.

"These guys have heroes dating from World War Two, it's wrong to brand the whole unit for the crimes of a few," retired Staff Sgt. Mike Stocker, a former U.S. Green Beret and president of the Special Forces Association of St. Louis, told QMI Agency. "They were super tight-knit, real tough and real professional. It's unfair, it's as if they have taken their swords, broken them and branded them all. As a paratrooper, I stand behind them."

The Canadian Airborne Regiment was a specialized group of army soldiers selected to jump out of airplanes into hostile territory. The group traces back to the Second World War's First Canadian Parachute Battalion, and the First Special Service Force (FSSF) known as the Black Devils. The American heirs to the Black Devils are the Green Berets.

But the elite Canadian army group was "disbanded in disgrace" by the Liberal government led by former prime minister Jean Chretien in 1995 after Somali teenager Shidane Arone was beaten and killed during a mission in the war-torn country. Several soldiers were court-martialled, and after a controversial hazing video surfaced, the entire regiment was stood down.

The Black Devils was a historic joint-fighting unit between Canada and the United States during the Second World War. The Canadian Airborne Regiment still carried the crossed-arrow and spear-head battle honours of the Black Devils until it was disbanded. Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) and Canadian Special Operations Regiment (CSOR) carry them now.

Retired Sgt.-Maj. Gordon Sims, 89, was a Canadian member of the Devils who fought against the Nazis in Italy and France.

"At first, I had felt we had been dishonoured by the Airborne," Sims said.

"But my feelings are tempered now -- it was a couple of radical guys who have tarnished the whole regiment, and should we all be painted with the same brush? No, that's what you had a stockade for."

The last commanding officer of the Canadian regiment, retired Col. Peter G. Kenward, wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to apologize to the airborne soldiers, reinstate the colours and strike "disgrace" from the record. 

Source   http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/05/31/18219721.html