Marc Stephens... phoney or fruitcake?

The "big" story towards the end of 2011 was the activities of the Burzynski Clinic in the US and those of the curious Marc Stephens who, rather than engage with the criticisms of the clinic, decided to stalk a 17 year old sceptic called Rhys Morgan by posting a picture of his parent's house in his email correspondence.

Rhys Morgan collecting an award from the sceptic Jedi Master James Randi

(There is a debt collection company I will be 'outing' in the next few weeks who also engage in this practice to intimidate potential debtors or, more often than not, random members of the public.) 

I digress.

I won't go too much into the Burzynski issue, because this rebuttal of his methods here is exemplary, suffice to say that trying to cure people with urine is quite an ancient woo woo and that I believe the actions of the clinic cause serious harm to the public. By that I mean his methods are not credible and people are giving his clinic thousands of pounds (or dollars... all money is the same to that fella it seems) for a therapy which is not efficacious (i.e. not proven to work or, more accurately, is BS). 

Buzynski could be a well meaning doctor desperate for a cure for cancer. I won't say he isn't. But in the face of the evidence that his methods do not work when empirically tested he is doing serious harm to his patients. No question. The evidence shows his methods do not work. How much clearer does that need to be?

But of course he is making money from this. LOTS of money. And he doesn't seem to mind taking money for something which, when peer reviewed, does not work. That, in my mind, makes him a charlatan. A snake oil salesman. But he's a snake oils salesman who won't stop; even in the face of the scientific criticism of his work... he carries on, convinced that his method will work one day or, from the evidence us sceptics have, that more people will be tempted by his very polished sales patter... we need something like this to dismiss nonsense:

Buzynski is either deluded or a crook. There's really no other way to put it. I'm sure he is well meaning on some level but the efficacy of his treatment should have told him long ago that he is on the wrong track. How many more people have to die before he is considered a public health risk?

I am certain about on thing... Marc Stephens is a crooked piece of shit. This is the "internet lawyer" who was employed by Burzynski to respond to the criticisms of his work. Stephens is the guy who has literally been doling out legal threats left, right and centre for the past few weeks. According to the Burzynski clinic, he was sacked after the fallout from the threats directed to Rhys Morgan.

Is he potentially a rogue employee or a defender of Burzynski frothing at the mouth when given some power to enact a damage containment exercise? Is he someone who looked at Britain's libel laws and thought...

Mr. Burzynski, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement.
But, just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement

It's interesting that since being publicly sacked he has continued dishing out the threats since and, in particular, to the blogger Ken White over at Popehat (an excellent blog by the way). 

In fact, it was White who convinced me it was worth writing about this when he wrote:

"Thuggish lawsuit threats calculated to chill dissent only work when people refuse to fight back. Let's fight back."

I agree, we need to fight these churlish threats and treat them for what they are; egotistical stunts designed to close down dissent.

I'm already in the High Court defending libel proceedings and have only wrote a couple of posts on my blog since to keep something of a low profile and, mainly, because the case is incredibly stressful and has taken me away from what I would consider a normal life.

It's taught me you should be careful what you say. And it has had the effect of me having to really think about what I write and how I write it. However, this issue is too important to ignore. For an adult to intimidate a young guy starting out in the world of scepticism (and gaining a positive reputation) by posting details of his address and sending a photo of it is nothing short of criminal as far as I am concerned. It's an act of cowardice. It's the act of a pathetic individual desperately seeking to justify their existence. 

Now I'm sure that Rhys could have withstood a rational a reasoned debate were he wrong about what he was reporting. When you start writing in a adult world you need to be able to handle the responses you get. I'm very confident that Rhys would have been able to engage with Marc on a level playing field or even one slightly tipped against him. However, to intimidate someone using the law and use tactics similar to that of a stalker is where a line should be drawn and I'm happy to defend Rhys and any other blogger using whatever means available.

In any event Marc Stephens has been caught out and shown up for what he is. And with his refusal to supply details of his legal registration which, at the time of writing, does not exist, he is more than likely a wannabe who is too lazy to put the work into law school. Taking the short cut never works. 

He could well be someone on the Burzynski payroll or, quite simply, a lonely keyboard warrior who needs attention. 

Cyber Threats 'R' Us... 

Either way, he needs to be shown that people are not intimidated and they will not be bullied, especially by morons like him.

Ken White has my support with this and as soon as I am able I will ensure that I devote some more time to raising the public's awareness of Burzynski's scientifically flawed, and therefore unethical, clinical method (Antineoplaston therapy) and the perverse actions of the shyster Marc Stephens.

If he wanted a fight, he picked the wrong crowd.

Accommodating religion...

I read this article by Chris Stedman today where he makes his case that we should embrace the religious more openly and essentially tries to rally "Atheists" to his common cause of religious apologetics.

He writes: "I have major concerns about the ways many vocal atheists go about trying to accomplish this goal through simplistic, unreasonable criticisms of religion".

Simplistic criticisms are fine; the charge that one has to be a Theologian in order to refute the myths at the core of faith is one which needs kicking into touch. All debaters that I have seen on the pious side, from all faiths, highlight this as a weakness of their Atheist counterpart. Douglas Wilson tried something similar with the late Christopher Hitchens, a man subjected to frequent criticism about his theological qualifications; William Lane Craig attempts as a routine when questioned about Richard Dawkins.

It simply does not require years and years of study to refute the theological propositions. You do not need anything more than the ability to read the Bible itself. Bear in mind that this is a book which has been claimed to have been written by the almighty god - surely such a god would have intended such a book to have been accessible by all of mankind.

There are only a few reasons I can think of why you would need someone to read a book to you.

1. You are blind;

2. You cannot read;

3. You are too young to understand sentence construction and the meaning of individual (and most likely complex) words.

But there is another reason why the Bible has been hijacked by Theologians who claim that all of humanity cannot understand it...

Power.

Tell enough people that they can read something but will never understand it unless they defer to an "expert" is simplest way of creating a hierarchy of influence and power. Illiteracy was the root cause of why people initially fell into this trap. Once people became literate a new way needed to be devised to retain this power structure. Theology degrees simply entered the fray to give a cloak of legitimacy. We now see colleges and universities devoted to Biblical studies and if you're not in with that crowd then you are considered ignorant.

We hear it all the time in Atheist circles.. and it is an often used criticism of the more intellectual proponents of the New Atheist movement.

It's what's known as an Ad Verecundiam fallacy; an appeal to authority. It doesn't work because 'authorities' are wrong about a number of things. So we can ignore Stedman's plea about not using simplistic tools to berate religion because it's not needed. Religion is not owed a living by any of us. including the faithful. This sort of accommodation of religion puts Atheists on the back foot immediately where there is no need to concede ground. 

If you can read and write and talk... these are the only tools required to criticise religion. Simple or not, it doesn't matter. It is the claims of the pious that require examination. Do not let people say that you need some sort of specialist knowledge to refute the claims made within the Bible or any other religious book. It's nonsense and a grab for the higher ground in the debate.

Is there a good way for Atheists to become active? Not really. All methods of interaction will work on some level. Whether this is taking the piss or taking part in debates; all are equally valid routes to challenging nonsense and bullshit. We just have to think about the claims that religious people make... and then tackle each case individually. 

More importantly, we do not need to mobilise Atheists at all or become activists. This is because Atheism is simply a position of rejection. We do not have groups mobilising to press home the point that unicorns are imaginary or that fairies are not living at the bottom of the garden (maybe I spoke too soon?)

Sam Harris puts it like this:

If religion is interfering with state politics, your activism comes from being a "Secularist". Even religious people can be secularists, and indeed should be, for if a religion opposite to the one they subscribe to is given prominence in politics you'll have a lot of unhappy people, discrimination and would pave the way to a totalitarian state. We can discuss which states currently exist in this way but there's no need; I would hope we can all think of at least three without going into such detail.

Thus Stedman's article falls apart because it;s based on the Composition fallacy and Fallacy of Moderation that Atheists are a distinct group of people with the same goal, and thus should behave in a coordinated way, and that there is a middle position to be assumed by accommodating religion by "understanding" it in the same way as a theologian would.

Sorry, this is a very odd form of religious apologetics. There is a totalitarian backbone to religion and it demands both service and closed lips; they'll have neither from me and I'm not going to play their game. And I don't particularly care if my own style of criticism is considered unpalatable, controversial etc. I write what I write because I hope that people see the same ridiculous things I do. I don't have a huge audience (just under 2000 a month) but that's enough for me to know I am getting some sort of message out there.

It's quite simple for me; either religion gets it's act together and provides some evidence for its very grandiose claims or it should get out of government, education and philosophy. I do not believe that it belongs in any of those fields of discourse. Religions belong to the annuls of history and nothing more. 

I also noticed an article by Alain de Botton in the Guardian where he wrote:

The second paragraph contradicts the first. He says that there was a warmth and joviality in the celebration of Christmas, the idea that the warmth and fun of the occasion helped him enjoy the occasion more than he thought. He then goes on to say that it should be possible to take some of the religious ideas of family, celebration, warmth etc into the secular realm.

Well that would be all well and good but the celebration of the Winter Solstice preceded the Christian traditions we are now accosted with on a yearly basis. The Winter Solstice itself created many, if not all, of the traditions we associate with "having a good un". It's also interesting that de Booton says that despite adopting Christmas sentimentality in his own household that he has not yet gone so far as to having a tree; almost as if this would force his entrenchment into the Christian faith further. But, again, the tree is another Pagan tradition.

I also cannot ignore his comment that "God may be dead"... almost as if he was ever alive in the first place. This is peculiar talk for a so called "Atheist" but it goes to show that "Atheism" itself is divergent and indiscriminate. However, people like de Booton simply give the Christians too much credence for the season...

Accommodating religion simply continues the façade.

Not without a Hitch

He preferred to be called "Hitch", which brought back memories of his own Father's nickname, but you would be given a cold stare and a harsh rebuke were to you shorten his first name "Christopher".

What seems irrational frustration with the removal of letters from a surname being acceptable but not for a first name is part of what made Hitch an enigma of our time. A person with a resolute belief in propriety but not afraid to step away from convention when the need suited. And thus people were never always certain where they stood with him as demonstrated by his fervent argument in favour of the Iraq War. For a "wet liberal lefty" to have agreed with George Bush's crusade into the Middle East with all of the religious and right wing baggage that accompanied it, it left people like Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky incredulous.

But then Hitch wanted nothing more than for people to be continually surprised. He had been doing it all of his life. He was considered, by both friends and enemies, of being a supreme intellect; a person who was articulate, spoke with great force and wit and had a ready accessible library in his head which would send shivers down the spine of his opponents in debate. He could, quite literally, destroy a person with his rancour, concessions and rebuttals.

But he left university with a third class degree. This demonstrates the point perfectly that it's not always "who you know" in the world that gets you somewhere because clearly Hitch was only able to sustain his long career based upon "what he knew". It also demonstrates that a university degree classification demonstrates nothing about a person's potential or ability to apply knowledge and passion to a career.

There is not a lot unique that people can write about Hitch but I hope the above "eulogy" has been something different from the various endorsements that are permeating the blogosphere. All are worthy reads.

What has been interesting is that as soon as Hitch's book "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" started trending on Twitter (#godisnotgreat) there were a gluttony of posts from some religious fruitcakes clearly unable to recognise that the trend was not some random phenomena started by some godless heretics but was the vehicle by which people could communicate common sympathy for the death of a person of great significance.

What was surprising, or which should not have been really as the book in question documented the history of religious irrationality, was the violence espoused by the "Religious Twitterati" in response to the hashtag.

Here is a selection rounded up by others...

These comments speak for themselves of course. What was even more surprising, but again should be expected, is the people wishing to profit from the death of Hitch:

These "psychic readings", attached to the Hitch hashtag, contain a level of crassness that is difficult to fathom. But people need to make a living right?

Ok, well the ultimate challenge befalls any psychic who entertains the spirit of Hitch because the level of eloquence needed to prove to any skeptic that they are in Hitch's presence would be incredible. Hitch was one of the most incredible speakers with a breadth of knowledge and a witty repertoire that is not really found anywhere else.

If psychics can truly speak to the dead, and they claim they are speaking to Hitch, they will need to do more than say "I'm sensing the letter "C"" and warble on about how existence is so much better not being in pain blah, blah, blah...

What sort of information could Hitch bring back? Certainly more than telling his family that he loves them very much. I wonder if we will see any attempts to contact Hitch. And if a medium was able to channel his spirit what sort of information would they need to convey to make us believe that he was really in touch? Hitch was one of the most entertaining orators of his generation (and no doubt many others). Unless they were genuinely in touch with his spirit, a medium would need a level of intellect and readily accessible knowledge that I doubt they possess. I might be wrong and the option is there for a significant script to be learned. It's up to the skeptic community to critique this should it ever happen. I'm hoping that someone isn't crass enough to try but judging by the touting for business on the back of the #godisnotgreat hashtag, don't be surprised.

And what about that religious fruitcake Rick Warren who thinks homosexuality is a sin and not a viable lifestyle? He had this to say...

This is the Christian "I told you so". Rick Warren was the guy who invoked Pascal's Wager during a debate with Sam Harris in his closing comments:

"We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble."

Rick Warren is basically a guy rolling dice with faith. He doesn't seem to get that he could well be wrong about the god he believes in and that any god who accepted his reasons for believing (which essentially rests on the turn of a card) would be a god of immense stupidity (or naivety). Any god who is omnipotent would know that Warren is taking such a bet and wasn't really into the faith. After all, it's just a bet. A win-win for the theist?

It wouldn't surprise me if the faith fruitcakes end up with some crazy theories about a deathbed conversion; they did it with Darwin, for example, and most recently with Anthony Flew (but in realtime)... if you hear or read about such stories, Hitch has left a memo:

I'm sure if anyone would have been sympathised with for turning to Pascal's Wager, it would have been a person in Hitch's position. Death is something we all face and we do not know how we will react when the time comes. I am with Hitch on this and there will be no recanting from me. Therefore the pious should stop using Pascal's Wager full stop as some sort of argument.

In fact it's intellectually repugnant for any faith head to use Pascal's Wager in anyone's presence but if they do just laugh because they are ascribing a level of stupidity to the deity they are placing on a galactic pedestal.

They commit the ultimate insult to their idea of god, their faith and their own intellect.

Seriously, just laugh.

There are many more comments which I could have included from the brainless to the disgusting. You will find them if you only scan twitter for a brief moment. Share the ones which make you laugh, rip apart the ones which are logically flawed and keep a cool, rational head with the ones which are offering a violent retort to the hashtag. Hitch would do no more, no less were he faced with this situation.

Hitch did not, to my knowledge, use Twitter. He never needed to. However, it is a medium which is immensely useful for spreading ideas. Millions of people use it, millions of people probably follow a god of sorts. These people can see what is being written. It is up to the Atheists and Agnostics to offer not so much an alternative to the violent remarks but a Zeitgeist; we need to show that responding with reason and skeptical rationality is the only way to approach such a situation. This in turn will help others realise we are not evil and cruel but fair and critical of bad ideas.

I'll leave you with this:

“The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.”
― Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-believer

EDIT:

This is one of the poignant blogs I was talking about above:

http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/2011/12/16/god-is-not-great/

Please read it. It's extremely honest and heartfelt.

It's just a theory

I'm no biologist. Other than a double award GCSE in Biology and Physics I have only an 'interest' in the sciences. I claim no authority whatsoever in this field. But I do know the difference between a 'theory' and a 'Theory'.

And no, the capital "T" is not it. I shall explain...

John Freshwater is one of those Creationist Biology teachers who claims that he teaches alternative views to Evolution to bring balance to the subject.

He lost a case against his dismissal from Mount Vernon Middle School this week where it was claimed that he not only taught Creationism and refused to remove religious material from his classrooms but also burned a cross into students arms with a Tesla Coil. This is a picture used in the case against him:

Horrific.

A report here said:

"Although it is reported that school officials have not completely absolved Freshwater of the Tesla coil incident, a hearing officer had previously found that it was not a factor in the firing, "because Freshwater stopped using it after he was told to do so."

“I have been completely cleared of that but they continue to bring that up. That should have never been brought to the case,” Freshwater said. “The media reports keep bringing it up. I guess it sells papers.” [emphasis is always mine]

So he is a liar as well as a child abuser then because burning symbol into a child's skin IS child abuse. He should have been sacked on the spot for that alone. The school caught him doing it and told him to stop using the device to inflict his warped sense of morality onto other human beings.

I would have strapped to a chair, put the Tesla coil in his mouth and then retire for lunch... hopefully upon my return he would have a different opinion on whether the Tesla coil is a suitable teaching implement? Maybe he would like it too much and this would defeat the object? I digress...

If that wasn't bad enough his lawyers adds insult to injury:

“He never had a negative performance evaluation in 20-plus years. He is a good teacher,” Rutherfor Institute President John W. Whitehead told CP. “The real issue here is that he has obligedly challenged a sacred object in public education, which is the theory of evolution.

“People forget it is a theory. So, our argument is that he should have the academic freedom to do that. If schools just want an official version they should just show a video or get a robot to do it. It would be easier,” Whitehead said."

Creationists LOVE saying that Evolution is "just a theory"... they think it offers a way for them to intellectually discredit Evolution and offer alternatives on a rational basis. 

Now, if they truly think that Evolution is just a theory based on their understanding of the word "theory", then it is entirely rational for them to believe that an alternative is viable. I always look at how people use rationality and reason to come to their conclusions. And I do think that they are operating on some rational level based on their assumptions.

But in this case it is intellectually dishonest for a teacher to believe that a 'scientific theory' and the word 'theory' mean the same thing. Therefore the assumption is wrong. Horribly wrong.

Scientific Theory: "In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains."

Theory: 

By saying that Evolution is "just a theory" it's clear that Creationists are referring to the 2nd description in this dictionary.com explanation. They think that Evolution is an idea... a flight of fancy without verification.

This book rounds on those who think that evolution is "just a theory" and I recommend it highly (I don't get money for links, advertising or purchases). 

Above all, it is intellectually disgraceful for a science teacher to be misrepresenting, via his lawyers, evolutionary theory. And this shows that he has been either sucked into a propaganda machine intent on "Teaching the Controversy" or is simply a fruitcake of the highest order who needs to go back to school. 

The message is; always watch out for the Creationists who deliberately misrepresent the word "theory" whether by intent or lack of education.

I wish the Liars for Jesus brigade would debate honestly. By moving the goalpost to deliberately misrepresent the science they are committing fraud and trying to fuck up public education. And it's all part of an agenda by organisations determined to promote Intelligent Design based on the Christian principle of a creator. We don't see Hindu creationists penetrating public discourse for example in the same way as the Christian fundamentalists but then the resources of these organisations is vast and influence wide.

Answers in Genesis is one popular creationist resource... check paragraph 6 of their mission statement:

This is the intellectual level at which this organisation and their ilk operate on. Nothing can contradict the bible. If it does, even if the evidence is overwhelming then it must be wrong. Simply because it will have been subjected to "interpretation by fallible people".

Anyone else think that this is a contradictory and hypocritical statement to make considering that:

a) the bible was written by fallible people

b) that the bible is subject to interpretation by fallible people

Nothing will convince the fundamentalists that they are wrong. It's their mission statement. I prefer to subscribe to rigorous scientific enquiry. I don't mind being wrong about things. In fact I consider being wrong to be a part of the learning process. Creationists, and particularly the fundamentalists of all faiths, do not want to learn. And that's backwards thinking...

Prayer prescriptions

On the 22nd September 2011 a hearing will take place conducted by the General Medical Council:

Doctor Richard Scott found himself in hot holy water back in May this year after a patient's relative complained about him pushing his faith onto the patient in question. The GMC agreed with the patient's version of events and issue a warning letter which Dr Scott refused to accept. He wanted to keep doling out prayer prescriptions so he contacted the Christian Legal Centre and the above hearing is taking place to establish whether he deserves a warning or not.

The ECHURCH Blog says:

"On the face of it, it would appear that this “Official Warning” is unwarranted, if indeed the medical consultation was concluded and the discussion of faith was with consent."

No-one has access to the GMC files or decision making process. If a patient makes a complaint which concerns misconduct and the GMC has investigated it to the extent that they feel a warning is necessary then it has to be accepted "on the face of it" regardless of whether we feel the decision is right or wrong. This is because we do not have access to the full set of facts enabling us to decry the decision and support Dr Scott. If the discussion was with consent, there would have been no complaint worth taking. The fact a complaint was made demonstrates, on the face of it, that Dr Scott stepped over the line.

The TelegraphView says:

"Nevertheless, the mother of one of those with whom he raised it complained. Indeed, she was perfectly entitled to do so – but we cannot see how her complaint can be grounds for the GMC to take action against Dr Scott. After all, no one maintains that he ever forced religion on anyone, or that his faith ever impeded his ability to dispense medical care."


Again, we do not know the complaint detail so it is tricky to decide whether it was a meritous complaint or not. Considering the GMC thought it was a complaint worthy of warning Dr Scott over, perhaps we should accept that there were grounds. But if she was entitled to make a complaint, why wouldn't it be grounds for the GMC to take action? I suspect it was poor phrasing from the writer which made it look like they were contradicting themselves...

The bold type, emphasis mine, is pretty much what the complaint was about otherwise the GMC would not have investigated the complaint. There must have been an element of forcing his religion on the person subject to the complaint otherwise Dr Scott was playing by the rules. The GMC don't tend to raise phony cases.

So what did Dr Scott say about the matter? Here is a video clip of his version of events. Two comments stand out:

1) “I encourage people to come down to our local Church.”

This is, in my opinion, forcing his religion onto a person. Dr Scott does not want a general chat about faith; he wants people to join his Church. This is his words on the matter and he says he has offered it to thousands of patients. So, not a one off and clearly a demonstration of Dr Scott's motives which has impacted upon his duty to dispense medical care because he has caused harm/distress to a patient. That seems to me to be the reasoning behind the GMC decision based on the information available to us all. And the last part of the GMC hearing notice appears to state that they acknowledge his media comments on the subject to be an admission that this was the case:

"It is further alleged that Dr Scott subsequently confirmed, via national media, that he had sought to suggest his own faith had more to offer than that of the patient."


So there is clearly more going on within the investigation than just an innocent chat and hopefully the details will be released in good time.

2) “I offered a needy patient a way out of the situation”

Religious arrogance. Crikey... you can smell the smugness a mile away. The only way out of a medical situation, to my knowledge, is with medical intervention. This is how we have extended lifetimes and better quality of health. It's remind me of a quote:

Give a man a fish and he'll feed himself for a day. Give him a net and he can feed his family for lifetime. Give a man prayer and he'll die praying for a fish.

So we have motive of Dr Scott and the means to employ his brand of dogmatism. The GMC decision to warn him seems light in regards to the thousands he has "helped" in this way. His beliefs seem to drive his career; indeed Dr Scott used to be a missionary in Africa and this is not a criticism. It's a worthy endeavour. But if you allow religious beliefs to be a part of the scientific methodology of medicine then heed these words from a fellow GP:

Dr Shaba Nabi, a GP in Bristol, said:

"To even consider bringing religion into consultations is unacceptable. It's as bizarre as bringing up witchcraft or folklore. I'm extremely respectful of patients that are religious. That is their personal belief, but we shouldn't bring our personal beliefs into consultations."

And this is what it is all about. Imagine a Satanist GP offering 'tactful' advice to a patient who looked "needy". I imagine the Christians would not be so 'tolerant' then.

But this isn't a harmless story about the tooth fairy in a Dentist's surgery... imagine a Dentist who took the tooth-fairy literally!

Scary thought!

The Telegraph then proceed to slide into the typical victimisation routine containing irrelevancies, fallacies and bullshit... a reet ole' recipe!

"What, then, is the fuss about? The GMC's excessive reaction is part of a tendency: a number of institutions and companies have, in a misguided attempt to be "multicultural", banned Christian symbols and overt expressions of faith, something that would never be attempted in the case of other religions."

The GMC would have been more than aware of the spotlight on religion but chose to make a decision based on the evidence they held. There is even the inference that Dr Scott withheld information relevant to the investigation. 

The GMC actually supports, wrongly in my view, "offers of prayer" by medical staff. Hardly the actions of an organisation banning the Jesus Cult. Nor has the GMC stated that other faiths have more rights in this area than Christianity/

The writers of the articles simply jump to conclusions that do not exist. Classic signs of paranoia and don't the Christians just love to be victims!

"And yet the Christian faith is central to our country's history and our traditions. Its legacy is visible everywhere."

Yes, but in a secular society there is no longer any need to put Christianity above any other faith. That's sort of the point of secularism. But an argumentum ad antiquitatem is always on weak grounds. Society has changed and Christian church attendances are dropping. No reason to place Christianity above any other religion whatsoever.

"It is right that today, no one expects a person who holds positions of power and responsibility to be a practising Christian. But we appear to be heading towards an alarming situation in which the profession of faith becomes an active disqualification."

I have never heard of a case where someone has been sacked or treated differently for holding a private belief. Where that belief causes an issue within the law then there is an approach that is taken to put a stop to it. Where that belief contravenes a code of conduct you are damn right that it should be dealt with via the sanctions available. 

This would apply to Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Atheists alike; no-one should be subjected to questions about faith upon their admission to hospital because medical care is not there to pander to cultural desires.

People need to accept that medicine is going to help/save them, or at least make them comfortable, and that this will be done without preference to any one religion.

My gut instinct is that prayer is simply the offer of false consolation. I could point to studies which show that the efficacy of prayer is non-existent but this would offer some sort of admission that the point is worth discussing. It's not. 

Prayer simply does not work. Never has done.

Medical staff who think it does should be willing to place their heads above the parapet and leave the profession and set up ministries healing people and then compare their success rates with that of a hospital. The faith heads can then admit that prayer doesn't work and should be kept out of the medical profession once and for all.

My guess is that the challenge will not be accepted. Have a guess why?