What have they brought us except war after war, against everything from foreign countries to consensual sex and contraceptives? Science has brought us modern life, which despite all its bad habits have given us an understanding of the Universe far beyond the words of any bible. Skyscrapers, electricity, and the Hubble telescope are all things that made life more than a struggle against bare survival and none of them came from the holy books, despite what a few lunatics believe. When some Muslims want to kill (and have killed) dissenters and apostates, when Christians believe hurricanes and earthquakes kill the sinful, a fight over a cracker shows what a bunch of crazy people we're dealing with.

Scientists in the U.S. bend over backwards to accommodate a populace who detests them in their hearts. Almost no other developed country are so fervently religious, and yet they have far lower crime rates, higher life expectancies, and give more money in foreign aid than God's favorite nation.

Stop being apologetic for taking an ethical and moral stance. Until you can show how blessed modified grains are different than any other, please stop telling us how great your God is.

Yes, the placebo effect may be large, but too many people use alternative medicine in lieu of proper medical care, either because of cost or lack of trust. The problem is that while the placebo effect has been demonstrated in scientific studies, these CAMs usually aren't. There's not even a measure of safety, as numerous product recalls and testings have shown. We can't even be sure of what's in those "health supplements"!

The names themselves are problematic because they convey that these alternative methods are medicines. But most reasonable people still don't call voodoo doctors "alternative healers."

I know all about traditional therapies that are found to be safe effective. I also know lots of modern medicines are suspect to say the least - witness the Merck debacle, for instance. But these failings in our regulatory system should make us even more skeptical about the claims of the virtually unregulated world of "supplements."

rather than bringing up something no one's talking about. Gee, talk about hate.

No offense, but comments like that from jmich71 is the sort of scientific ignorance that saddens me so much. Drugs aren't perfect and they'll always have side effects. To expect definite help is to misunderstand medicine, which in many cases remain as much an art as science (ie. trial and error vs. predicted result). What we can say however is that with scientific analyses, we can be fairly certain of a drug's efficacy and possible side effects. A 70-90% success rate seems near top of the class, esp. against something as unpredictable, and deadly, as cancer. To expect perfection, certain knowledge that it will help, is to expect the impossible. It's like that recent article about vaccine opponents who want "green vaccines" that do no harm. Such attitudes prevent good medicines and practices from being used in the name of safety. Show me something better than, or even come close to, 70-90% cancer prevention, and then talk to me about "may or may not." And no, I don't mean abstinence.

I feel strongly that political/religious groups ought to exit public discussion on health and safety and leave the matter to scientists, people who actually study these things. This sort of reporting gives those groups unfair and unwarranted soap box to scare people who are not well versed in science or medicine, and will prevent them from getting the care they need. It's like a story awhile ago about an economist criticizing global warming predictions and research methodologies. It's outside their expertise (if any at all) and irresponsible. To further their arguments which are made in the courts instead of peer-reviewed scientific journals does only harm and no good.

Give it already. Like I told some Obama supporters, you won the primary, so what are you so angry about? Is it the fact that you failed to convince numerous demographics - white women, hispanics, working-class, Asian-Americans, etc, of your candidate's superiority? Trying to label most Clinton supporters as Republican troublemakers is ridiculous - witness the large margins in big states like NY and CA - and counter-productive to efforts to unite the party behind an increasingly Republican, I meant, centrist, Democrat. If you wonder why Obama has failed to make inroads among those that did not vote for him in the primary, just look in the mirror.

sprouting from the religious folks here and everywhere. Imagine.

Because minorities and women couldn't even participate in politics back then! When they started demanding equality, (can I note there's no ERA nor civil rights on sexual orientation?), a new GOP wing appeared as the "silent majority" under Richard Nixon, and it continues to hold the reins of power since being vindicated in 1980.

Social conservatism in this country has become inextricably intertwined with religious conservatism, and it is from the pulpits and their leaders that chauvinism has become the litmus test. It is inconceivable to me to imagine an American conservative movement without the influences of the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Reed, and Parsley. In other countries, Huckabee would run with a Far Right party; in this, they are the power brokers of a leading party. Frankly, there are no emotions that are stronger than religious, and it is naive to think that we can go back to economic issues when the Reagan Democrats first voted against their own interests back a generation ago.

What that article basically saying is, if we all care about our pocketbooks and ignore the plights of the traditionally disenfranchised, we can get in power again. So is that what we're reduced to? Economic improvement at the expense of everything else? What are powers without rights?

Both very economically liberal and zero social activism. Don't get me started on how Carter lost power.

This is one bad article. Wrong facts, wrong conclusion.