Atheist Age

Dr. God: Family Value Malpractioner

One of the most powerful desires involved in suspending critical thought is that of belonging. And belonging to a family is something we value without thinking of it. Like many evolutionary traits it serves a vital purpose. Again like many essential traits, it is confronting, challenging and in marked dissonance to the ideals we strive for.

At a distant point in our history belonging to a family literally meant life or death, hunger or starvation, dominance or submissiveness, servant or served, safety or persistent fear. Later it meant wealth or status, work or rest, victor or vanquished… in short the family has potentially defined our quality of life for so long, all cultures protect this association between status and family regardless of the cost to individuals. Not necessarily a costly burden so much as pre-ordained ideals assumed to be of great individual value and achievement. As a recognised part of becomming it is a powerful part of belonging.

Some cultures permit the murder of female family members by other male members not because it is accepted, but it is expected. The symbolic representation of family honour – family values – supersedes the right to life of certain family members. That this is the clever thinking of men obsessed with a patriarchal religion cannot go unnoticed.

In the video below we see how terribly lethal superstitious ignorance can actually become when it is valued over evidence. Those in the video are ignorant of quite a lot – or pretend to be. But I wonder if we as a community are somewhat ignorant of the similarities between religion and abusive families. The psychology is disturbingly familiar. Paternalism, punitive/conditional love, marked anosognosia and anosognosia by proxy, appealing to superstitious obligation over interpersonal responsibility. The use of God as a defence strategy in the absence of an answer, ridicule of opposing evidence, surreptitious/deceitful influence, narcissism, indoctrination of the impressionable, thunderous arrogance and the utter conviction that protection from being held fully accountable is their just due.

I don’t want to lose my daughter, but if it’s gods decision who am I to fight against it? – Trevor Stitt who fled Australia to avoid medical treatment in favour of red clay and prayer for his daughter Tamaras incurable hepatoblastoma. She will die under his abuse.

---

---

As an author over at Young Aussie Skeptics correctly asks in reminding us of the death of Gloria Thomas: “Is our government prepared to step in and take action before another child is dead, or are we just going to let it happen again”? As tragic as this individual case is, I can’t help but conclude it’s also tragic that such a question is entirely sensible. I can’t provide an answer because I have no idea. And that frankly just disturbs me because I’ve seen this end in tragedy, taunts and mockery many times.

This, easy to access and a pleasure to read, embedded PDF of Focus magazine has two relevant stories. On page 1 we meet Graham Preston who was jailed back in June 2003 for pro-life antics. His sole direction was Proverbs 24, verse 11: “Rescue those being led away to death”. Note the bias in how his story is reported and please understand this is an excellent example of using religion to cement tribal cohesion. Now read the story on page 2: Naltrexone Doctor Vindicated and remind yourself of the above proverb. Dr. Reeces “feelings were hurt”. No news on how the 25 corpses are feeling.

For the record, not only is it entirely irrelevant to launch ad hominem attacks on the application of demonstrably efficacious therapy, but the claims made have been followed up and found to be fallacious. These statements simply reinforce that fundamentalist indoctrination and zealotry of such lethal extent is resilient to rehabilitation. By attacking an alternative therapy he is admitting his aim was never about adding to the rehabilitation arsenal. It was about a personal vendetta over old funding disagreements and his religious conviction that certain policies are immoral. Science is immoral, evolution is immoral, democracy is immoral… Anything not backed by bible blubbery is of course, immoral.

In reality the QLD Health Practitioners Tribunal adjourned indefinitely over the 25 deaths at his bastard baptising, demon exorcising, sin stopping, faith healing hands. Let’s consider a more expansive view, given that he has since claimed multiple times – and before a Parliamentary inquiry – to “hold the world safety record” in administering the very treatment he killed 25 Aussies with. Like most junk scientists his arguments aren’t about his supporting evidence, as much as about misinforming people about aspects of medicine he considers immoral. Much like homeopathy, Christian fundamentalism as a medical option [christian science] must discredit that which exposes it’s lies: simple, ordinary evidence. Dr. Reece is the gentleman who coined the term “hedonistic delirium” to describe modern democracies. Or the simply gorgeous: “Sometimes the best way forward, is the way back” in a brave attempt to argue pre-industrial revolution societies were superior.

Okay – let’s begin. By 1999 Australia knew naltrexone was far from safe despite “miraculous” stories of recovery. Wodak and Hall discussed the evidence in an editorial in the MJA, that also briefly noted the role of the media in confusing community attitudes. Stuart Reece would never forget this and has “blamed” not only these scientists but projected responsibility for his disgusting conduct onto these very individuals. He has slandered both of these brilliant internationally renowned scientists whilst under Parliamentary protection accusing Hall of “scientific fraud” [Page 61/FHS 55]. And he has ignored the Hippocratic oath in his quest to slander and destroy Dr. Wodaks reputation.

In September 1999 after being raided and threatened with closure he claimed the QLD government would have blood on it’s hands if he didn’t get his way. 20 months later, 25 patients were dead because he got exactly what he wanted. He was raided and closed down again, much to the ire of the Christian Democrat Party – whose “federal drug policy” proudly claims individual Aussies have no civil rights in this respect. Biblical love is in abundance whenever Dr. Reece is faced with evidence. Three months after claiming 25 “drug addicts” died as “part of a conspiracy”, Reece dropped all pretense and did the media circuit as a faith healer. In fact these “patients” earned him thousands of dollars per head only to be prescribed addictive benzodiazapines – later to contribute to cause of death – as the untrialled and untested implants failed. Had basic support – such as a contact or counseling – been available, heroin overdoses would be highly unlikely. As I noted above, this was never about helping addicts so much as winning a moral argument, and the lucrative contracts that must one day follow.

In October 2005 Tony Abbott funded Drug Free Australia to the tune of $600,000. They breached almost every condition under which they were awarded the funding, ultimately emerging as right wing lobbyists – not therapists – and set about promoting Creationism, Conservatism and Punishment for all. They are loyal to Sweden and the USA hardliners who cling to lucrative contracts and powerful identities. Reece, a member of Abstinence International and Texas trained fundamentalist was back with backing.

By April 2007 Dr. Reece was testifying to a Parliamentary Inquiry that the immoral policies that permitted condoms – the real cause behind AIDS – clean needles, opioid therapy for addicts, non-punitive cannabis laws, harm reduction and general tolerance for ill Aussies would be our doom. In utter amazement the gallery stared as this “expert” who’d introduced himself by saying “I certainly know the science”, displayed a photo of “the archaeological site of Sodom” and a tree with snakes instead of branches. [Page 33/FHS 27]. The point to this? “There will be consequences”.

As reported in Crikey by Ray Moynihan our world expert decided the “disease drugs, sex and rock-n-roll” was the problem at hand. Asked about the safety of naltrexone, Dr. Reece immaturely attacked the internationally renowned scientist, Dr. Wodak [Page 59/FHS54], who specialises in blood born viruses and epidemiology – which means he supports condoms, clean syringe access and used syringe collection: dire threats to our very civilisation, claimed Reece. This childish ad hominem approach is common despite the fact entire shires with dozens of dispensaries and hundreds of clients report no methadone deaths. A minority report death, and methadone is one toxin on a list of many. It is taken under supervision, immediately after being prepared by a pharmacist. Compared to 25 deaths at the hands of one man in a year and a half, a scattering of deaths across hundreds of outlets in every state, is of no significance. Dr. Albert Stuart Reeces real world record is clearly in reckless fatalities.

How did Committee Chairperson react to this insanity? Bronwyn Bishop slandered and abused public health scientists yet gushed uncontrollably in support of Dr. Reece’s voodoo. A pre-determined agenda in what was billed as the most important family relevant inquiry of Howards government spoke volumes. Bishops final report was rejected nationwide by all but religious fundamentalists and Christian lobbyists. Read my lips. Not one single publically funded treatment or advocacy agency in our nation missed the opportunity to criticise in scathing terms her “report” which you may remember from coverage of her wish to “take the children” of drug users with “absolutely no chance” of reunion.

Gordon Moyes also forgot about Proverbs 24, Verse 11 shouting praise for naltrexone despite the grave concerns of our medical community about it remaining unregulated – but lucrative for the same people year in, year out. When the Medical Journal of Australia exposed the fact these same misguided faith healers were not reporting adverse reactions – despite TGA requirements under the Special Access loophole demanding it of them – Dr. Gods team were having none of this “academic stuff”. Drug Free Australia, who move in lockstep with the USA Republican hardliners [Drug Free America Foundation] actually published a sorta, kinda rebuttal. And yes, adorning the page is direct reference to Dr. Stuart Reece himself. In deeply offensive mockery boasting how Reece “studies” death rates post treatment they entitled their piece of twaddle, Australia could be the biggest loser.

I could go on and on, and the above is a cut down sanitised version sparing you Dr. Reeces sickening obsession with teenage and childhood sex and sexual assault, murder, violence… all due to “the depraved advertising industry” which catalysed “the disease sex, drugs and rock-n-roll”. Advertising womens nudity, outside of “a strictly medical context” is, in his ever so wise [and medically qualified] eyes, “incredibly powerful pornography.”

Today, a decade plus since this intellectual repugnance began, Reece is front and centre as a pin up boy for religious fundamentalism. Three years ago he promised Parliament with a blinding flash of Peacock Terminology that his results were “statistically powerful” and “revolutionary”. Of course, there are no results. It’s the same certainty that only faith can sustain. If prayer cures homosexuality, addiction is a certainty. His latest work “proves” naltrexone is safer than opioid therapy. In reality multiple disciplinary teams have steadily found naltrexone has a fatality rate over four times that of opioid therapy. Dr. Reece, and others who seek funding and massive contracts seem to have a magic formula no others can find.

My point to this indulgent diversion is that Australia is no stranger to standing back with folded arms and by not acting as we would expect a just society to act, reinforces the misguided belief that religion is the “untouchable” tool. For over ten years a huge part of our public health system has been exploited in the name of religion. Thus the best response to Lukes question over at YAS may be more questions. How have we allowed progressively malignant superstition to dictate to us on morality? Given the example set by the USA why are we intentionally expanding and funding fundamentalist religions? Why do we insist that junk Christian science is “harmless” and ones own choice, in the same way we insist alternative medicine is harmless and “an informed choice”?

Only in recent years has the orchestrated rejection of default respect for religion found a strong voice. We no longer accept in total the authority of those who use God as an excuse – as we see done above – but we still have a very long way to travel intellectually. I would also argue that we must not be led further astray by those who use the “F Word” – family values – so liberally. The value of any family is much like the institution of marriage. Place it above human rights and human beings will be abused in the name of subjective value judgement.

So my greatest question is along the lines of concerns already raised on this blog: the intentional maligning of science. In its typical tradition, the splintered and fractured divergences of Christianity that stoke the engine furnace of conservative fundamentalism invite steadily more bizarre practices into its protective fold. Only a fool would accept abundant taxation and Equal Opportunity exemption is not exploited and as with all power, will be jealously guarded and arrogantly inflated.

How long before we as a community demand legislators acknowledge that default cap in hand respect and trust is fraught with risk already evidenced by the abuse of our vulnerable, flagrant law breaches, financial scams, bigotry, insouciant discrimination and, as seen with orchestrated child sexual abuse, an excuse for crushing immorality? What future can we expect if we allow this illusion of god-given elitism to increasingly include rejection of realities that conflict with demonstrably false and absurd beliefs? How long before Equal Opportunity exemption includes rejection of educational standards? Is not freedom of religion at risk of abandoning its duty to community cohesion such that Christians may enjoy an escape from reality?

Already we allow home schooling that is overtly biblical and anti-’modernity’. We permit dietary restrictions that run in direct contrast to national daily nutritional intake requirements, never questioning if the children starved of iron and protein this way are simply pawns in their parents deluded vacuum. We allow parental denial of the administration of medical technology that would save a childs life: a simple blood transfusion. We fund schools not to educate students but to fill their minds with archaic ideals. Ideals so easily refuted by merely looking around our Fair Go nation that a great deal of supporting intellectualism is spent mocking, discrediting and misinforming on the topic of science.

The Christian god demands he be loved above and beyond any and all – including family members. Having perhaps not insignificant experience fending off ‘chapter and verse’ arguments I’m reminded by the above video of Abraham and Gods test of his loyalty. He was ordered to kill his son on Mount Moriah according to Genesis 22: 1-24. Not until he had bound his son Isaac to a sacrificial alter and held the dagger aloft did good ole’ god step in and say, “Ho, Ho – just joshing old friend”. Or, words to that effect.

Isaac wasn’t so stupid however. Much like the young girl above, Isaac knew his father was lying. “Where is the Ram father?”, he asked – having been told they were off to sacrifice a ram. “The Lord will provide”, lied Abraham. And my guess is Trevor Stitt is more interested in Divine Provision than Parental Responsibility. My reason is sound skeptism and one other dynamic. Throughout the interview the locus of control is – from Trevors viewpoint – with him.

He may sound absurd but remember he’s the one basically giving the world the semantic finger, as it were. At the last, he is confronted with evidence and the burden of proof. His response is to run away, grudgingly return and argue he is only doing what god wants. In short this man denies any problem exists, rejects advice in dissonance to his fragile beliefs, mocks and derides those wanting to help his daughter, relies on a book from his wifes grandfather and required to defend his actions proffers, “God did it”.

Tamara, like Isaac, isn’t quite so gullible. The saddest aspect to me is that she knows daddy’s probably a few screams short of a tantrum when it comes to Critical Thinking. Well, if Trevor wants to be Abraham, let Tamara be Isaac. She has every right to ask her question. “Where is the cure, father?”. I know just what he is thinking. “The lord will provide”. Sure. But provide what and provide for whom, Trevor? Let us hope this analogy continues and sees the only death is that of stupid voodoo scam tricks such as Mr. Stitts ‘red clay’ magic cure cum faith healing.

The final question is perhaps, how many will be abused, exploited, tormented, mocked, slandered and threatened simply because we are yet to demand the burden of proof be met? But to do so in any serious legislative manner is to lose ones political influence. A direct loss of votes. Religious apologetics – even moderate Christian Kevin Rudds “working families” dash to church each week – is steadily cranking that heavy jagged wheel of global superstition.

And it is our very selves and our species brightest traits that is crushed beneath.

---

Tags: Alternative medicine, Crime, Cults, Faith Healing, Fundamentalism, Homeopathy, Medico-legal, Miracle, Myth, Scam, Video