The Hazards of Belief

Peregrinus · 09-08-2017 07:40AM

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think that it's people's belief in science that lead them to follow Wakefield as the science never really supported him in the first place, nor does it now.
His believers are a lot more of the types who mistrust science and evidence and anything that contradicts their views.

His papers were published in the Lancet which, you know, is generally taken to be a mark of scientific acceptance and approbation. Obviously, the Lancet has since published a retraction and the whole affair has been acutely embarrassing for them, but my point is that his claims received such wide attention and acceptance in the first place precisely because they were attended by these indicators of scientific credibility and respectability. So this is an instance in which people placing their faith in science , the scientific community, the scientific process would be misled by that faith.

But you make a good point about why people might continue to believe him today, even after the scientific community has repudiated him. And this raises the whole psychology of belief; why do people believe anything? Lots of people hold beliefs, both theist and non-theist, about matters which are not susceptible of empirical proof; why do they choose the particular beliefs that they do? Lots of people hold beliefs about things that are susceptible of empirical proof, even though the particular beliefs they have are unproven, or are even refuted - anti-vax beliefs, climate change denial, etc. Again, why? But, while the questions are interesting, I don't think the answers have much to do with religion. With things like anti-vax and climate denial the beliefs themselves have no religious content, and the people who hold them need not be, and frequently are not, religious.

09-08-2017 08:14AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

His papers were published in the Lancet which, you know, is generally taken to be a mark of scientific acceptance and approbation. Obviously, the Lancet has since published a retraction and the whole affair has been acutely embarrassing for them, but my point is that his claims received such wide attention and acceptance in the first place precisely because they were attended by these indicators of scientific credibility and respectability. So this is an instance in which people placing their faith in science , the scientific community, the scientific process would be misled by that faith.

Even at best, his paper being published in the Lancet meant that anyone being perfectly scientifically minded would conclude that he's indicating a possible hazard in a particular type of vaccine. Even if everything he did was above board and his conclusions were correct, at most it means that more study would be needed before a general conclusion could be made.

However even at the time, not everyone was convinced of the credibility of his paper and even then there was a lot of evidence weighing towards the opposite conclusion. At the absolute best the most people's "faith" in science would lead them to was a paper that had a small outlier in the data of vaccines.

Anyone who concluded that "vaccines are dangerous" or "Vaccines cause autism" would not have been being scientific, nor could science lead them to such a conclusion.

The real reason that those ideas (or even the conclusion stated in the paper in question) gained any kind of traction at all was because of sensationalist media. And whether it was published in the Lancet or some pay to publish journal, they still would have taken it out of context and sensationalised like they do with every that either cures or causes cancer.
The difference here however was that some clever individuals were able to sell a more scaremongering narrative because vaccines are more typically given to kids, hence they were able to use that fear to their advantage.

No one who buys into the idea of vaccines causing autism etc did so because of any science that lead them to that fact.

Also the idea of having "faith" in science is a bit of a misleading notion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But you make a good point about why people might continue to believe him today, even after the scientific community has repudiated him. And this raises the whole psychology of belief; why do people believe anything? Lots of people hold beliefs, both theist and non-theist, about matters which are not susceptible of empirical proof; why do they choose the particular beliefs that they do? Lots of people hold beliefs about things that are susceptible of empirical proof, even though the particular beliefs they have are unproven, or are even refuted - anti-vax beliefs, climate change denial, etc. Again, why? But, while the questions are interesting, I don't think the answers have much to do with religion. With things like anti-vax and climate denial the beliefs themselves have no religious content, and the people who hold them need not be, and frequently are not, religious.

But a lot of the time they follow the same patterns of belief and the same kinds of unscrupulous people manipulate believers in the same ways.

Peregrinus · 09-08-2017 08:39AM

King Mob wrote: »

Also the idea of having "faith" in science is a bit of a misleading notion.

Whatever about faith in science, people certainly put their faith in the scientific process, the scientific establishment, all the time. You do that every time you accept the results of an experiment reported in (e.g.) The Lancet without replicating the experiment yourself.

King Mob wrote: »

But a lot of the time they follow the same patterns of belief and the same kinds of unscrupulous people manipulate believers in the same ways.

Yes. But the fact that you find this associated with both religious and non-religious belief structures means that it's not something characteristic of religion as such. Belief doesn't become less hazardous simply because it's a non-religious belief.

robindch · 09-08-2017 12:30PM

Canadian group Atheist Republic holds a meeting in Kuala Lumpur. Local authorities are not impressed:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/malaysia-atheist-group-muslim-apostate-members-lapsed-faith-south-east-asia-a7881301.html

Independent wrote:

The Malaysian government is investigating an international atheist organisation after a picture of a meeting held by the group in Kuala Lumpur went viral. Atheist Republic, a Canada-based non-profit organisation, often stages meet-ups in larger cities, and last week posted a picture on Facebook of people attending the Atheist Republic Consulate of Kuala Lumpur annual meeting.

The post said the gathering “was such a blast!” and shows a room full of people smiling with their arms in the air. Many are making hand gestures. “Atheists from all walks of life came to meet one another, some for the very first time… each sharing their stories and forming new friendships that hopefully last a lifetime! We rock!” it read.

Malaysia is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country where apostasy is not a federal crime, but critics say deepening fundamentalism within the Muslim majority is threatening religious freedoms, Reuters news agency reports. Malaysian states that have their own laws regarding Islamic affairs do now allow Muslims to formally renounce their faith, and people are instead fined, jailed or sent for counselling. Some claimed that Muslim apostates were involved in the Malaysian chapter of Atheist Republic, which has reportedly sparked uproar among some Muslims.

Members of the atheist group are reported to have received death threats on social media. The group is being investigated by Malaysia’s Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department to determine whether any Muslims were involved in the meeting.

Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, the country’s deputy minister who oversees religious affairs, told reporters: “If it is proven that there are Muslims involved in atheist activities that could affect their faith, the state Islamic religious departments or Jawi could take action,” New Straits Times reported. “I have asked for Jawi to look into this grave allegation.” Mr Wajdi told Reuters that the government will determine whether any Muslims were in attendance at the atheist meeting and if they have been involved in spreading atheism, which he claimed “can jeopardise the aquidah [faith] of Muslims”.

“We need to use the soft approach [with apostates],” he added. “Perhaps they are ignorant of the true Islam, so we need to engage them and educate them on the right teachings.” He said ex-Muslims found to be part of the atheist gathering would be given counselling, while anyone found spreading atheist ideas could be prosecuted.

09-08-2017 01:22PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whatever about faith in science, people certainly put their faith in the scientific process, the scientific establishment, all the time. You do that every time you accept the results of an experiment reported in (e.g.) The Lancet without replicating the experiment yourself.

But as I explained, even if everything was above board with the Lancet paper (and there was many who did not believe it was when it first came out.) the only thing you could rationally conclude from it is that there might be something more to research in the future. That's all.
There's a reason that giant conclusions such as "Vaccines cause Autism" are not and cannot be reached on one study alone. It's the same reason you are pointing out.
Yes, journals can get it wrong. They do a lot. That's why it's the consensus of evidence that emerges that's used as the basis for conclusions.

If some one concluded that vaccines cause autism based on this one paper, then they aren't be very scientific.

Nor do you have to put your faith in one specific journal or one specific paper.
When the vast majority of papers all start concluding the same thing over and over again, and the only other way to explain that is to propose a vast conspiracy, (for example: as claimed by anti-vaxxers and global warming deniers) then you're pretty safe to make a conclusion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But the fact that you find this associated with both religious and non-religious belief structures means that it's not something characteristic of religion as such. Belief doesn't become less hazardous simply because it's a non-religious belief.

It becomes hazardous when that belief does not become dependent on evidence or facts.
Belief in the supernatural, conspiracies and such all rely on conclusions without the support of evidence and in some cases in spite of evidence.
Belief in the scientific process or "faith" in journals or individual is subject to evidence and is able to change according to evidence.

My point is that certain individuals can and do take advantage of blind faith, be it in religion or in other fringe topics.

recedite · 09-08-2017 05:13PM

King Mob wrote: »

If some one concluded that vaccines cause autism based on this one paper, then they aren't be very scientific.

That wasn't what happened. There was a plausible hypothesis that the MMR, when administered as a multiple jab, at that particularly critical time in the child's brain development, could be overloading the immune system and sparking (or switching on) some innate vulnerability or tendency towards autism in some kids. There was also an observed correlation, in that the first appearance of autism was often soon after the vaccine jab.
Wakefields research seemed to show evidence for linking causation and correlation.
We still don't know all the exact mechanisms for causing the likes of asthma or autism, or why they might be increasing in modern times. But we do know that triggering the immune system has consequences beyond one simple immune response to that one particular antigen.

09-08-2017 05:43PM

recedite wrote: »

That wasn't what happened. There was a plausible hypothesis that the MMR, when administered as a multiple jab, at that particularly critical time in the child's brain development, could be overloading the immune system and sparking (or switching on) some innate vulnerability or tendency towards autism in some kids. There was also an observed correlation, in that the first appearance of autism was often soon after the vaccine jab.
Wakefields research seemed to show evidence for linking causation and correlation.
We still don't know all the exact mechanisms for causing the likes of asthma or autism, or why they might be increasing in modern times. But we do know that triggering the immune system has consequences beyond one simple immune response to that one particular antigen.

I don't exactly agree with that description of events, but it doesn't really change my point. Even if what you say is acccurate and Wakefield and his paper wasn't a fraud, that one small study would not have been enough to allow someone to make a solid conclusion on the matter.

And this is before you consider the balance of evidence that was against such a link then and even more so now.

Anyone who claims positively that vaccines cause autism are not making that claim with the support of evidence.

oscarBravo · 09-08-2017 07:12PM

King Mob wrote: »

Anyone who claims positively that vaccines cause autism are not making that claim with the support of evidence.

Anyone who claims that vaccines might cause autism is not making that claim with the support of evidence.

There is no evidence - none whatsoever - that autism has anything at all to do with vaccination.

oldrnwisr · 09-08-2017 10:54PM

recedite wrote: »

That wasn't what happened. There was a plausible hypothesis that the MMR, when administered as a multiple jab, at that particularly critical time in the child's brain development, could be overloading the immune system and sparking (or switching on) some innate vulnerability or tendency towards autism in some kids. There was also an observed correlation, in that the first appearance of autism was often soon after the vaccine jab.
Wakefields research seemed to show evidence for linking causation and correlation.
We still don't know all the exact mechanisms for causing the likes of asthma or autism, or why they might be increasing in modern times. But we do know that triggering the immune system has consequences beyond one simple immune response to that one particular antigen.

No, it really didn't.

You see, even before we get to the actual problems both methodological and ethical in the Wakefield paper, it should be apparent from the summary of the paper that Wakefield's "experiment" couldn't possibly demonstrate a causal relationship:

"12 children (mean age 6 years [range 3–10], 11 boys) were referred to a paediatric gastroenterology unit with a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills, including language, together with diarrhoea and abdominal pain."

Apart from the obviously small sample size, Wakefield's "study" is a case-series study. This means that it is little more than a collection of clinical anecdotes and as we know, the plural of anecdote is not data and certainly not when we're talking about 12, yes 12 children only 8 of which had a reported link to the MMR vaccine. A patient came in with X, we did test Y, we found Z, that's all. To properly establish a causal relationship you need to do one of two things. You either need a cohort study (either prospective or retrospective, ideally prospective) or a case-control study.
In a cohort study you take a group of people with a given intervention and look for changes in the outcome. So in this case, you would take a group of children (a few thousand) who were all vaccinated and then see who got autism and who didn't. You can either do this prospectively, before the intervention, tracking their progress, or retrospectively from medical records.
Alternatively, in a case-control study you take a group of people with the outcome and look for changes in the intervention. So, in context you would take a group of children with autism and a group of children without autism and look at differences in vaccination rates among the two groups.

Now, back to the Wakefield "study". The idea that a single jab was worse than single vaccines administered over a period of time was isn't suggested or mentioned in the paper. There isn't even any clear causal hypothesis. It wasn't until the press conference organised by the Royal Free in conjunction with the publication of the paper that Wakefield announced the idea that single vaccines were better. The idea isn't in his paper and it certainly wasn't supported by any published research, then or now.
Of course, when people started digging into the story behind the paper we found the really shady ****. We found that Wakefield never disclosed his involvement in a patent for single vaccines. We found that Wakefield never disclosed his involvement in a class-action lawsuit against MMR. We found that the parents of 11 of the 12 children in the paper sued drug companies and had active legal cases involving MMR prior to the MMR paper.
However, we don't really need to start casting aspersions about Wakefield's character. His "study" is so badly written and thought out that it's damning enough on it's own. As I've already stated there's no real statement of a causal hypothesis in the paper. In fact, the paper spends much more time talking about what it didn't find than what it did find:

"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described."

"If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine."

"In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation."

I've included the last quote above because it shows just how weak and tenuous the link between autism and the MMR vaccine was in the original paper. It all boils down to a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy based on 8 children. The actual controversy stems from Wakefield's press conference revelation and the treatment of said revelation by the media.

Below, I've linked to the full text to the original Wakefield paper so everyone can see just how flaky and noncomittal the original paper is. I've also included links to the papers which showed what real science actually had to say about Wakefield's media claims.

Wakefield paper

MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study.

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism

Using the combined vaccine for protection of children against measles, mumps and rubella - Cochrane review

robindch · 09-08-2017 11:08PM

recedite wrote: »

Wakefields research seemed to show evidence for linking causation and correlation.

Off the top of my head, Wakefield fabricated evidence, violated his professional ethical code, had been bought off by lawyers looking to sue based upon the evidence he'd fabricated, had his own competing 'vaccine' waiting in the wings, which he'd patented, and he generally behaved with reckless, fraudulent cynicism throughout.

For the above, the paper was retracted, most or all of his co-authors removed their names from the Lancet paper, Wakefield himself was stripped of his medical license and he now makes money by selling vaccine conspiracies around the world - conspiracies which will result in death.

Here's an article just today about the dangerous fall-off in HPV vaccine takeup here in Ireland following a successful social-media campaign run by various crank groups:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/at-least-40-will-die-because-of-drop-in-hpv-vaccinations-1.3181622

Irish Times wrote:

At least 40 women will die from cervical cancer as a result of the dramatic fall last year in the number of girls taking up a life-saving vaccine in secondary schools, the Irish Cancer Society has said. The charity said urgent action was required to address the reduced uptake of the HPV vaccine by girls in their first year of secondary school. It protects against certain strains of the human papilloma virus, which causes about seven out of 10 cervical cancers.

The rate of vaccination reached about 87 per cent in the 2014/2015 academic year but fell last year to 50 per cent, largely due to what the society said was misinformation about the vaccine spreading on social media. An organisation known as Regret, while it was not named by the cancer charity, claims to represent teenage girls, it says, have suffered serious illnesses following receipt of the vaccination. Cancer experts and public health specialists insist there is no evidence of any serious illness having been caused by the vaccination.

About 30 organisations in the health, children’s advocacy, women’s rights, and education sectors announced on Wednesday they had formed the HPV Vaccination Alliance, with the objective of reversing that misinformation. [...]

10-08-2017 01:09AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

We found that Wakefield never disclosed his involvement in a patent for single vaccines.

It's interesting to point out that at first Wakefield was "just against so many vaccines all at once".
But now he seems to have changed tack to be against vaccinations in general, probably because it's an easier sell for his audience.

recedite · 10-08-2017 10:25AM

Just to be clear, I agree that Wakefields paper was fraudulent. I'm saying that it "seemed" to be legit and if some equivalent paper appeared in The Lancet today it would have a similar effect.
Also he cited another previously respected authority, Fudenberg, in the paper.

In terms of this whole thing being relevant to "the nature of belief" I think we can say its a good example of the "argument from authority" in action. The combined effects of both author's credentials and qualifications, their backing by various hospitals and research establishments, and the Wakefield paper being published in a respected medical journal. In hindsight we can see that it all led nowhere, and the motivation may have been dishonest from the start.

BTW the research since then does not show that vaccines are harmless. But IMO the benefits outweigh the side effects in the vast majority of cases.

oscarBravo · 10-08-2017 12:04PM

recedite wrote: »

BTW the research since then does not show that vaccines are harmless.

No, but it most definitely shows that there's no connection between vaccines and autism.

kylith · 10-08-2017 12:40PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, but it most definitely shows that there's no connection between vaccines and autism.

And they're definitely less harmful than the disease.

oldrnwisr · 10-08-2017 12:55PM

recedite wrote: »

Just to be clear, I agree that Wakefields paper was fraudulent. I'm saying that it "seemed" to be legit and if some equivalent paper appeared in The Lancet today it would have a similar effect.

Okay, two things here.
Firstly, it's very unlikely that a paper like Wakefield's would get published now, either by the Lancet or any other respected journal. The BMJ, for example, don't publish case series studies and under Stephen Lock banned the phrase "further research is needed" which is just a deepity. The Lancet now abide by both the ICMJE and COPE guidelines which would probably cause a paper like Wakefield's to get rejected, both ethically and methodologically.
Secondly, it wasn't the paper itself which had an effect, it was Wakefield's revelation about single vaccines at the press conference. It came completely out of left field in that it wasn't indicated at all in the paper, and it was what we'd now call clickbait. Wakefield's claim kicked off what became a very public misreporting and misrepresenting of what was a valueless, badly written and ethically flawed paper. If the press conference hadn't happened, nobody outside the existing fringe anti-vax movement would have paid any attention and anti-vaxxers would have remained in the fringe.

recedite wrote: »

Also he cited another previously respected authority, Fudenberg, in the paper.

I'm not sure what relevance this has. Fudenberg might have been a respected authority for his work on immunoglobulin but his work on MMR and autism started off and remained as fringe pseudoscience. He only managed to get it published by using a dodgy now discontinued journal and then drove straight off into tin-foil hat land by claiming that he could cure the children with his own bone marrow.
Also I'm not surprised that Wakefield cited Fudenberg. They were long-time collaborators and Fudenberg is listed as co-inventor of one of Wakefield's patents.

Besides which, as Richard Feynman points out, it's the data that matters not the citations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

recedite wrote: »

In terms of this whole thing being relevant to "the nature of belief" I think we can say its a good example of the "argument from authority" in action. The combined effects of both author's credentials and qualifications, their backing by various hospitals and research establishments, and the Wakefield paper being published in a respected medical journal. In hindsight we can see that it all led nowhere, and the motivation may have been dishonest from the start.

I don't know though. I'm not sure that researchers in the field would have paid any attention to credentials or qualifications or any of that. Like I said, it was the way the paper was presented to a lay audience that kicked everything off not to mention the later attitudes (e.g. all opinions are equally valid) of the media which caused problems. I think Ben Goldacre explained it well, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfheO9H8CD4

recedite wrote: »

BTW the research since then does not show that vaccines are harmless. But IMO the benefits outweigh the side effects in the vast majority of cases.

I didn't say that vaccines are harmless or what the research showed. The only comment I made touching on that subject was that no research exists to support Wakefield's press conference revelation that single vaccines were better than the all-in-1 MMR jab. And we shouldn't expect single vaccines to be safer because there's more of them meaning children are more likely to miss one and they have to be spaced out more which means that children are at risk of infection for longer.

robindch · 11-08-2017 01:41AM

A men's-only mass in Limerick - run by the Purgatorian Archconfraternity of Redemporist Order has been cancelled after 150 years of masses. The remaining attendees are not happy:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/faithful-cry-foul-over-scrapping-of-men-only-mass-in-limerick-1.3168794

recedite · 11-08-2017 11:52AM

robindch wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/faithful-cry-foul-over-scrapping-of-men-only-mass-in-limerick-1.3168794

Men Only Mass. Strange, I didn't know there was such a thing... and now there isn't :pac:
I suppose in a couple of hundred years time the mosques will reach the same end point, with a similarly quiet farewell, lacking in any fanfare.

Samaris · 11-08-2017 12:50PM

robindch wrote: »

Purgatorian Archconfraternity of Redemporist Order

What a name.

"Oh, you're looking for the Elucidated Brothers of the Ebon Night? Three doors down, we're the Purgatorian Archconfraternity of Redemporist Order, folk-dancing on Thursdays."

robindch · 11-08-2017 01:41PM

Samaris wrote: »

What a name.

It is a splendid name indeed - hence the late hour in posting last night, as I ended up down the dustiest of dusty rabbit holes trying, amongst other more normal things, to figure out who these peculiar people are - not entirely successfully, unfortunately.

Anyhow, it does seem that the Confraternity was part of the relatively mainstream Redemptorist Order, but that observance declined and eventually petered out to the point that, quite possibly, only the poor lads in Limerick were carrying on the the tradition, possibly without the knowledge or approval of the rest of the order. It seems that the Order formally resurrected the tradition in 2003 on the Scottish island of Papa Stronsay at a place with the equally sonorous name of Golgotha Monastery, by priests who appear to be loyal to Archbishop Lefrevre, though it's not fully clear if they're following Lefrevre's de-facto successor, the Holocaust-denying, climate-change denying, Putin-fancying, Bishop Williamson of the SSPX Resistance.

Reading in between the lines, I can't help but wonder if the order to cease the mass came from on high, at least in part, on account of possible links to the hardline SSPX Resistance, rather dwindling numbers of attendees.

If you're interested, you can purchase life-time membership of the Confraternity for EUR150, and it would make an unbeatable conversation piece to hang on the wall beside the beach photos from Benidorm.

Samaris · 11-08-2017 08:40PM

...I did not know we still had these mad-sounding sects. Golgotha Monastery, situated on a remote* Scottish island, preferably shrouded in mist and containing the remains of the Purgatorian Archconfraternity conducting mysterious male-only rituals.

*I don't want to know if it isn't

recedite · 12-08-2017 10:38AM

Interesting little yarn about how the Transalpine Redemptorists first came to hold their tiny Scottish island; by fomenting civil war among the locals!

Papey minni (or little Papey, — little Priests' Island — known now as Papa Stronsay). For more than 1400 years this island of Papa Stronsay has been set apart from the other Orkney islands as a holy island. It is recorded in the Orkneyinga saga (Ch. 18) that there were still monks living here 955 years ago when, in 1045, the Viking Earl Rognvald came to Papey minni to collect malt for his Christmas ale. The monks apparently produced malt from barley and to this day the island's small peninsular is called Corn Graand. The Earl in his viking barge, replete with shields covering its bulwarks, and a host of oarsmen did not return home alive. They were warmng themselves in the monastery when the house was surrounded by Rognvald's rival, Earl Thorfinn whose men quickly set fire to the building. They let the religious escape but slaughtered Earl Rognvald and his men.

Religion has always been the bane of the drinking classes :pac:

robindch · 12-08-2017 11:02AM

With names, locations and a history like these, I'm surprised they didn't show up in a Dan Brown.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-08-2017 09:26PM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/limerick-priest-challenges-authorities-over-role-of-women-in-church-1.3182908

Limerick priest challenges authorities over role of women in church

A parish priest in Co Limerick has called for the ordination of women to the priesthood in the Catholic Church.

Fr Roy Donovan, parish priest of Caheronlish in Co Limerick, also objects to the introduction of a male-only permanent diaconate in his Cashel Archdiocese before completion of a report by the papal commission on women deacons.

On women priests , Fr Donovan said he believed "a woman could celebrate the Eucharist even better than a man being more familiar with the shedding of blood. A woman saying 'this is my body, this is my blood' can give more meaning to the Eucharist than any male celibate."

Janey mac.

I expect that if wimmin priests ever does happen, they'll have a special rule about them not being allowed to be in their impure state :rolleyes: when doing the magic eucharist thing.

Samaris · 13-08-2017 10:28PM

If they're going to make a thing of it being related to menstruation, I could nearly agree!

silverharp · 21-08-2017 09:53AM

m'kay

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4281794/irish-egypt-couple-drown-suicide-pact-water-pool-video-chilling/?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SprnklrSUNOrganic&UTMX=Editorial:TheSun:TwLink,noimage:Statement:News

AN Irish woman and her Egyptian husband who killed themselves as part of a “suicide pact” said they wanted to see if there was life after death in a disturbing video.

The woman, 60, and her 43-year-old husband were found dead in a swimming pool, within a villa owned by a friend in Hurghada, on Egypt’s Red Sea coast.

Michael OBrien · 21-08-2017 04:33PM

silverharp wrote: »

m'kay

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4281794/irish-egypt-couple-drown-suicide-pact-water-pool-video-chilling/?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SprnklrSUNOrganic&UTMX=Editorial:TheSun:TwLink,noimage:Statement:News

Tragedy could have been avoided with a bit of counselling and common sense.
Even in their religion such actions are frowned upon. But its a form of pascals wager gone horribly awry.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-08-2017 08:25PM

We'll all get to find out in the end - no need to rush...

CabanSail · 23-08-2017 12:13AM

Having been dead before I am in no hurry to be there again.

robindch · 23-08-2017 11:34PM

Jesus manifests - this time as a bearded guy on the edge of an ultrasound scan. Mother and child made it through and are doing fine.

No news on what Jesus was doing in with the baby or whether he plans on setting up his tent in there permanently.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41027858

Peregrinus · 24-08-2017 01:57AM

I have to say that to me it's more suggestive of the young Charles Manson.

The Hazards of Belief

Comments