This article is a little different from my prior ones, it may seem to go far afield but bear with me, I’m taking the long way around to make a point.
Using scientific studies and scientific information appears in most cases a proper way to approach things, but in actuality people should take the time to look into the information provided and not taken at face value.
Too many times people have taken things out of context or only given part of the information to satisfy their desire to make their point. So now here’s the point — information that is misused about a subject is, in fact, misinformation or disinformation.
You can give people totally accurate information about a subject that can lead them to make poor decisions if the presentation of the facts is in some way biased by the presenter.
Recently it was brought out that there is a dangerous chemical and that there may be a need for the government to regulate or ban it altogether. Here is the information that was provided to the general public by those who are concerned about this chemical
Recently, it has been discovered that our water system has been contaminated with a hazardous chemical. This chemical is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and dissolves completely in water. No action has been taken regarding this dangerous contamination. This substance is dihydrogen monoxide, also known as Hydric Acid, Hydronium Hydroxide and has the following properties:
It is used as in industrial solvent and coolant, and is used in the production of styrofoam.
It is used in many forms of animal research.
It is used in the distribution of deadly pesticides.
It is an integral part of the operation of nuclear power plants.
It accelerates corrosion and rusting.
It was part of the chemicals that cause the disintegration in the pipes of Flint Michigan that caused the lead contamination.
It contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
Inhalation of the substance has been shown to cause death.
In certain forms, this chemical can cause severe burns, cloud the atmosphere, and may contribute to the “greenhouse effect”.
It has also been found to be a component in acid rain.
It can also damage concrete and glass, as well as the surfaces or roadways.
It may also be related to electrical failures, and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
It may have been a factor in the destruction of the Space Shuttle “Challenger”.
It has been directly linked to thousands of deaths in third-world countries, especially those which do not have the resources to properly deal with the threat, or treat people who have come into contact with it.
It’s found in many different cancers, but there’s no proven causal link between its presence and the cancers in which it lurks – so far. The figures are astonishing – DHMO has been found in over 95% of all fatal cervical cancers, and in over 85% of all cancers collected from terminal cancer patients
Quantities of this substance have been found in our rivers, lakes, streams, oceans, reservoirs, and now our local water system. It has also permeated the atmosphere, and has contaminated ground water.
No current form of water purification can completely eliminate the deadly substance.
Our government has spent millions of dollars in an attempt to control and contain this dangerous chemical.
Every day, hundreds of secret research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store quantities for later use.
Several government agencies are tracking the degree of contamination throughout the world.
This administration has not dealt with the problem or production, distribution, and use of the damaging chemical, possibly due to the importance to the “economic health of the nation”.
Fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations.
Dihydrogen Monoxide is linked to gun violence.
DHMO has been found in fairly large quantities in the homes of all the perpetrators involved in school shootings, theater shootings and mall shootings not only that it has been found in fairly large quantities at most of those locations.
Dihydrogen monoxide was found at every recent school shooting
A current study reveals that far from being uncommon, Dihydrogen Monoxide is used as an additive by every major beverage manufacturer in the world. The study found that Dihydrogen Monoxide was never explicitly named on any beverage label.
DHMO has been found in beer, milk, baby formula, champagne, wine, distilled spirits, carbonated drinks, sports drinks.
Dihydrogen monoxide has contaminated the ice in both Arctic and Antarctic regions.
People need to act now to prevent further contamination. To find our more about this dangerous chemical go to. http://www.dhmo.org/
What you don’t know CAN hurt you, and others throughout the world.
Now when you look at scientific studies there are a few things that you have to be cognizant of and this is especially true when dealing with pseudoscience studies.
When looking at and attempting to evaluate information, even from a scientific standpoint, a person should have thorough understanding of not only the subject being studied but also how the study has been done. It is easy to use information from a study by using direct quotes, but this is not always the best thing to do and it may end up making you look very foolish.
When you look at a study you need to take into account a number of things;
First of all what is the purpose of the study? Did the people doing this study have an agenda?
Secondly who is paying for the study (adversarial alliance)?(/blog/2015/10/07/adversarial-allegiance-the-truth.html).
Next you need to evaluate the questions that were used on the study to see if the questions were asked in a biased way. Then you need to look at the results of the study. In plain terms what are the hard numbers? Many times people will use hard numbers and then throw percentages in to get the answers that they want.
This was done in the US Department of Justice study of released prisoners in 1997 where they compared percentages of two different groups of people not accounting for the fact that the hard numbers showed an entirely different story. First of all, the statement that is in the 1997 study that says sex offenders are four times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime than other inmates released from prison. Which has since been proved to be a manipulation of the statistical data, with the fact being that inmates who had no prior sexual charges were responsible for 90.9% of the new sex crime convictions of people released from prison. So that statement is proven to be not at all true or supported by the data. For more information on this see: /blog/2014/11/06/why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important.html
Now we come to the point that I’m trying to make. Recently a number of news articles have attempted to use information from a study that said that one in four girls and one in five boys have been sexually abused before the age of 18 as proof of the high re-offense rates for people on the registry and they have used the twisted data mentioned above from the 1997 US Department of Justice study to prove their point, even though that researched conclusion ha been thoroughly debunked.
First of all the student study on unreported sexual abuse has been called into doubt because of the type questions that were asked and the way that they were asked. They worded the questions on the study to get the answers that they wanted and not the facts or truth. They also biased study by using small numbers of the tested group that were chosen from specific locations that didn’t represent most groups of teenagers.
But even if the numbers are correct there are a couple of other issue that need to be brought out that are totally being ignored by the yellow journalists that are attempting to make a point by using this information. We now know through multiple studies and lots of number crunching that the re-offense rate for people on the registry is less than 1% in any given year, and that means of the new sex crimes that are committed each year 99% plus are by people that are not on the registry. If there is under-reporting then it also has to follow that particular logical progression and that is if there is a percentage of under-reporting then 99% of those unreported crimes are not done by people on the registry.
Here is the primary issue that should be pointed out, nowhere in the under-reporting study, or for that matter any accredited study, was there any proof that any portion of the under-reporting was due to people on the registry reoffending. For the media to jump to this conclusion is at the very least biased reporting.
Therefore attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth.
Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country
On top of all the other things that are involved here, California is attempting to implement a new bill that they have passed allowing psychiatrist and psychologist the ability to civilly commit people who have been involved in sex crime. This new bill needs to be challenged because the pseudoscientists have absolutely no way of predicting future dangerousness in fact every time they attempted they have not only failed but they have been disastrously wrong. and after all we are talking about a person’s protected liberty interest of freedom from confinement.
The ability to predict future dangerousness or for that matter how a person will react in any given circumstances is nill, we address this in an article on SOSEN a while back called ever have your fortune told /blog/2019/03/17/ever-have-your-fortune-told-3.html the commonly used risk assessment tool the stat 99 turns out to be only 47% accurate you would have a better chance of flipping a coin then using the stat 99.
There is also an article on SOSEN /blog/2018/02/12/now-we-have-the-civil-commitment-threat.html dealing with the legality of the present form of civil commitment and what is required by law to have someone civilly committed in almost every case that I’ve heard about the present use of civil commitment because of possible future dangerousness violates a citizens constitutional premises
As for using psychiatrist and psychologist to take away somebody’s civil liberty the argument needs to come that they are unqualified to predict future dangerousness using the *Daubert standard the courts have strictly applied the standards in Daubert, and it has generally been successful in excluding “junk science” or “pseudoscience”, as well as new or experimental techniques and research that the decision might have been expected to deem admissible. This argument is real simple if they cannot prove their statements using the standard scientific methods such as 100% accurate repeatability. Then it is junk science and should not be allowed in the courts.
It’s one thing for a person to come and asked to be committed to a mental institution or to have family members come and request a person be placed in a mental institution. Even then when family members requested the court doesn’t take it at face value because placing a person in an institution is restricting them of their constitutionally protected liberties so the court requires a certain percentage of proof before they commit someone on a family’s recommendation.
There are other articles on SOSEN considering the legality and constitutionality as well as the effect of pseudoscience on people on the registry I would invite you to browse our old articles and give yourself some more ammunition are your argument.
Oh, and for those of you who are worried about DHMO, well, DHMO, DiHydrogen MonOxide, also known as Hydric Acid, Hydronium Hydroxide is usually called just plain water or H20. First-year University Chemistry students have made laboured jokes about water’s chemical properties for years.
Perhaps now you see the point about misinformation, or disinformation .
If you can give people this totally accurate (but emotionally laden, and sensationalist) information about water. When you then survey these people, about three-quarters of them will willingly sign a petition to ban it, and it doesn’t matter where in the world you do the survey. The same can be said for all of the sex offender regulations that are in place across this country including the registry itself, they are based on lies and myths and the use of misinformation.
*Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical s, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. The Daubert Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the Daubert standard. The courts have strictly applied the standards in Daubert, and it has generally been successful in excluding “junk science” or “pseudoscience”, as well as new or experimental techniques and research that the decision might have been expected to deem admissible.