Study Finds the Pious Fight Death Hardest 921
Stanislav_J writes "A US study suggests that people with strong religious beliefs appear to want doctors to do everything they can to keep them alive as death approaches. The study, following 345 patients with terminal cancer, found that 'those who regularly prayed were more than three times more likely to receive intensive life-prolonging care than those who relied least on religion.' At first blush, this appears paradoxical; one would think that a strong belief in an afterlife would lead to a more resigned acceptance of death than nonbelievers who view death as the end of existence, the annihilation of consciousness and the self. Perhaps the concept of a Judgment produces death-bed doubts? ('Am I really saved?') Or, given the Judeo-Christian abhorrence of suicide, and the belief that it is God who must ultimately decide when it is 'our time,' is it felt that refusing aggressive life support measures or resuscitation is tantamount to deliberately ending one's life prematurely?"
If it were me (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be praying for a quick death so my family wouldn't have to pay the millions to keep me alive after hitting the limit on my insurance policy.
Pious means scared (Score:1, Interesting)
The pious have the greatest fear. This is why piety, a close relative of conservatism, is associated with a variety of risk-averse thoughts and behaviors to preserve "status quo," even to the extent of apparent paradox.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
That's how it works for me.
Around the age of 5 or 6, I was introduced for the first time to whatever the current life expectancy chart was at the time. For males, the average was 72. Now, I understood that anything could happen and I could pop my clogs a lot sooner, but I distinctly remember thinking "72? Sounds like a good run." And since that day, I've lived my life largely based around the knowledge that by the time I'm 70-80, I better have gotten to do all things I've wanted to do.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I'd expect it to be the reverse. If I expected my eternal destiny to be judged upon death, I'd be pretty anxious to postpone my trial.
I always have thought this to be the most illogical parts of humans of modern mainstream religion.
The longer you live, the more time you have to mess things up and do bad things.
So if you die an early death, then chances are you are more likely to have not messed things up.
In this, the past religions (and some modern extremists) the argument of martyrdom actually makes sense. Not only do you die sooner than later so you can't mess things up along the way, but you are guaranteed a positive afterlife.
Since most modern Churches groups frown on that ancient practice these days, it is quite conflicting to expect humans to "tough it out" ( like saying that it is immoral to assistant the suicides of terminally ill patients and keep comma victims on life support as long as possible), when they die and they are going to heaven anyways.
Is this really surprising? (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably get modded down for this.. for "religion" has always struck me as a haven for the fearful, those who lack self-esteem, or narcissistic personalities looking for external justification for their insane behaviour.
When such an individual is confronted with the prospect of death.. all that doubt, self-loathing and regret must really be a lot to suddenly bear when they "know" they're about to face the final judge.
Re:As much as I don't want to spark a Religion deb (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think you're not afraid of death, try this test: get a friend, and go to the Grand Canyon. Stand on the edge. Have your friend hold onto your shirt and push you so that your balance goes out over the edge. Don't try it too many times - your friend might slip.
Now, were you okay with it? Did you feel any fear, any adrenaline, anything like that? If not, maybe you're not afraid of death.
I think the actual problem here is something the Tibetans call tetsom - lazy doubt. You sort of nominally believe that X is true, and you leave it at that - you never go any deeper, never really examine it to see if what you believe really stands up to analysis. You *think* you really believe it, but your faith is foundationless.
Then when your faith is tested by the approach of death, suddenly your lazy doubt catches you by surprise, and makes your fear of death just that much worse, and so of course you cling to life all that much more strongly.
The depressing thing about lazy doubt is that I think it's behind a lot of the really pernicious things we attribute to religion - e.g., creationism is a clear case of lazy doubt. "Oh, if it turns out that things evolved, that calls my whole belief system into question, and I don't want to have to question it, so I will pretend that things didn't evolve."
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a terrible survey, the base demography are of terminal cancer patients. Have the surveyor ever consider the possibility of people become pious due to fear of death? Many soldiers get sent to the battle field also suddenly become more pious. That's not something new. It'd pretty much be the same as "We've surveyed slashdot, and it seems people who post on slashdot also tend to be avid computer users." All I can say about that is "well duh!"
Authoritarianism (Score:5, Interesting)
People who follow the instructions of authority, believe others should follow such instructions, and tend to believe that authority is right most or all of the time, are called authoritarian. People who hold to belief systems dictated by a hidden power with perfect judgement are some such. Those people also tend to believe/believe in other authorities judgements and power. Thus, people who hold strong religious beliefs tend to be the same people who most strongly believe in (and expect results from) the abilities of health care authorities -- doctors.
The same paradox was noted by Stanley Milgram in the Yale Experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment [wikipedia.org] A nurse was one of the people who continued to follow instructions and "shock" a subject after the subject appeared dead, just because she was told to. At first it seemed a paradox that a nurse would follow instructions that would harm another. He figured it that he was equivalent to a doctor in the nurses mind, and so she was following his instructions to the letter without evaluation, just as she was trained to do with doctors. (Nurses these days are trained differently).
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
Prolonged & Painful vs Short & Serene (Score:5, Interesting)
A few notes to remember about this study:
Personally, I would much rather go for hospice care. Aside from being more comfortable for the patient, it also gives them a chance to say goodbye to everyone properly, rather than just gurgling at your horrified visitors from inside a torture chamber.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting. Do they realize on their death bed, they were actually raging assholes to their fellow man and are afraid of the wrath of their god on the other side?
EXACTLY! It was probably fear that lead them to the church in the first place. Then they surround themselves with like minded people and yell at the rest of the world for how evil they are(really there just mad everyone else doesn't have the same irrational fears of the natural world.) and have nice fantasies of the rest of the world rotting in hell. Then on their deathbed they wonder... "Is god gonna like those fantasies of all those people burning and being tortured because that's about as much as I thought about my entire life...All I ever wanted was for OTHER people to die and goto hell".
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
From a memetic point of view, this only makes sense. Any religion that believe offing yourself as fast as possible was a good idea would be like the Ebola of religions, wiping itself out before getting a good shot at jumping hosts.
Although, in this day of fast communication and semi-decent data retention, one could almost get away with it. Put up a website, start a trust to keep it going, put up a page consisting of "donate to our trust, then pop a cap in your head". Then read it.
It'd only catch the crazies without a better hook, but it'd probably keep the site going until the government where the site was hosted suffered revolution or nuclear war.
Terminal Cancer Is Different (Score:5, Interesting)
This study was done on terminally ill cancer patients. My wife is an RN, and in our discussions about her job it has been very apparent to her that death by cancer, slowly, causes a very different reaction in most people she has seen than other terminal illnesses.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the study, but I would like to see it expanded to, for example, heart/lung failure and other forms of terminal disease, and see what the difference is.
One aspect that I have seen in cancer end-of-life treatment is the heavy reliance on pain-killers to cope (nothing WRONG with that, just an observance). This could also have a very serious effect on EOL decisions.
Re:Catholic Judeo-Christian (Score:3, Interesting)
only God has a right to decide when my time is.
In the cases mentioned in the article, basically He has already decided it's their time, but they keep defying Him by relying on machines and drugs and surgeries, prolonging the time away from Him.
So, basically, no. You're not letting Him decide when your time is; you're attempting to artifically take every last second possible.
They haven't been to my church... (Score:2, Interesting)
Doesn't always work though. I think most of the oldest people at my church have DNR's. But we're 'spiritual' people, not 'religious'.
Also, given that these are are terminal cancer patients, some christians could get really confused and think that just because God can heal them, he just hasn't yet and "must need more time" (obviously a logically fallacy).
While it's true that people with a greater fear of death are more likely to explore religion and that it may attract them to explore a belief, I seriously doubt that would get them to devote their life to it. Fears are only motivating when we are immediately faced with them. I've met very few people that actually live with a constant sense of foreboding (actually none).
I'd be really interested in any data on this when is comes to deaths that are less premature/illness related.
I can hardly speak for all the "pious" (Score:4, Interesting)
I cannot speak for all the pious, nor do I know how the study defines the pious so I will speak for myself. [cue the anti-whatever snarks...]
I believe we---mankind---were created for this world, not some ethereal place in the clouds. The Bible teaches that the people of God will live on earth forever, with a brief (relatively speaking) intermission elsewhere (between death and the return of Jesus Christ). It's quite interesting that the Bible begins with the Tree of Life in a garden (Eden) and ends with the Tree of Life in a city (see Genesis 2-3 and Revelation 21-22). Actually, the Tree of Life is still in a garden-like area that we would call a park. When Jesus returns He will create a sort of heavenly Central Park in the midst of a great city.
God intended from the beginning that man should live on the earth and the great promise is that one day man will live on a newly recreated earth and God will dwell with man forever in a world of peace, free of greed and anger and malice and war and poverty and hunger. In other words, people were created for this world and it should come as no surprise that they want to stay in it as long as possible. If, however, one does not believe this or one believes that this world is all there is, why delay the inevitable? Non-existence can often seem more desirable than a bad existence in this fractured, fallen world. For those who have hope for a future, existence in this broken world is desirable because they believe they were meant for it all along.
Death is never dignified (Score:2, Interesting)
Simply speaking as a Lutheran Christian, I regard death as the enemy. However I believe that Christ conquered death so it is not to be feared. Death should never to be treated with dignity, but given the scorn it deserves. It doesn't need to be fought, but life is our gift and to be preserved as far as it is reasonable.
Re:As much as I don't want to spark a Religion deb (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh believe me, I agree with you 100%
I would choose to consider myself a "Christian", if one were to apply a label to my religious beliefs.
The core tenent of Christianity is to (paraphrasing) "Love God above everything, love others as much as you love yourself."
Now I have serious problems with pretty much all organized Christian faith. They spend all their time telling you that you're going to burn in hell if you don't do this, or don't say that, or if you vote in favor of gay marriage, or eat red meat on Fridays during Lent, or use a condom or Pay us 10% of your wages or fail to wear your holy underwear at all times. You have the godhatesfags.com morons who obviously really fucking hate themselves if they're "loving others as much as you love yourself".
Its not my place to pass judgement on ANYONE. I live my life, believe what I believe, pass on my beliefs when appropriate, and try my best to be good natured. And I fail miserably at times :). I try to do good overall in the world, and help other people out when they need it. And quite frankly, I can do that without someone telling me the myriad of ways I'm going to go to hell.
But I agree..the Burn in Hell shit is nothing but FUD. These people who call themselves Christian and constantly tell you how you're going to burn in hell....well, assuming hell IS real, my personal opinion is they'll probably be there too.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:1, Interesting)
Their fear of death is why they believe in religion in the first place: for the promise of a life everlasting. Fear of death is part of a basic survival pattern: fear of the unknown. Running away from anything you don't immediately understand is a valuable survival strategy, so it's not surprising that just about every critter on the planet evolved it.
But once we developed consciousness and could think about how and why things work, and come to understand just about every threat to our existance, fear of the unknown has become a vestigial evolutionary trait. And fear of death by old age has no evolutionary value to us. So are those who cling to it the "less-evolved"? Are those who do not fear death our future?
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:1, Interesting)
I always have thought this to be the most illogical parts of humans of modern mainstream religion.
The longer you live, the more time you have to mess things up and do bad things.
So if you die an early death, then chances are you are more likely to have not messed things up.
I grew up in a Mormon family. Mormons baptize children at the age of 8, before which they believe children automatically go to heaven.
When I was 7 years old and preparing for baptism, I seriously considered jumping out the second story window to ensure my place in heaven.
Of course, I'm very glad that I didn't. In my opinion, any religion that is sufficiently mind-bendingly irrational as to drive a 7 year old to consider suicide is straight up evil.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
Who knows what happened to all the babies' souls that had supposedly been in limbo up until that point. It makes absolutely no sense to me how people can believe in religion when things like this are fairly common.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:1, Interesting)
That's arguing in a circle. The universe doesn't HAVE to exist at all, much less be hospitable. It is not trivial that both of these are true, no more than it would be trivial for me to find myself alive, having somehow dodged every bullet from a firing squad.
And also you've missed my point: these fine tuning arguments aren't talking about possibility of life forming somewhere. They're talking about the fine tuning required for life to form anywhere. For example, the universe has not collapsed on itself, atoms can form, as can stars - all of these would be prerequisites for any kind of life to form anywhere, and require incredible fine tuning, but these are not explained by the Atheist account.
Religiousness is not measured by prayer (Score:5, Interesting)
People pray a lot. The question is what they actually do with their lives.
Many church regulars will tell you about people they know who attend every Sunday, yet who live some of the most amoral lives imaginable.
So prayer itself isn't a measure of religiousness. It may even be a measure of self delusion so that people can live with what they have done with their lives.
Too many people don't know why they live. They don't really believe in anything, so the thought of death scares them to no end. They seek prayer as an affirmation that they're basically good people, even if they don't feel like their time on Earth was a good thing.
I call that a guilty conscience, not a pious person.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:2, Interesting)
There are all kinds of last minute rescue stories in the Bible. Jonah and the whale, the parting of the Red Sea, even the bringing back from death of Lazarus.
Who but those without faith would assume that it's a lack of faith that motivates them?
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:1, Interesting)
FUD? Really? Do you know what that stands for? Allow me to spell it out: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Now, do you know what I think of when I think FUD? I think about the Fear of going to hell, the Uncertainty of where a 'baby soul' goes, and the Doubt of reality you're REQUIRED to have to be religious. 'Pagan FUD', in the context of religion, is an oxymoron and a hilarious one at that, as the biggest FUD machine EVER is religion.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
I can talk about this first hand. You are all wrong. My father is very religious. He has had cancer twice. The second time was seven years ago. The doctor's gave him a 3% chance of living. He lived. And to this day, his medical bills are nuts. He works everyday to prolong his life in a manner which I know any normal mortal would be able to handle. I would have rolled over and died years ago. His quality of life sucks. He has been on a 90%liquid diet for seven years. For the past two years, he coughs up half of what he eats because it goes into his lungs. It takes him an hour and a half to eat a snack. It is an everyday battle for calories and strength. His oxygen levels are so low, that nearly every regular doctors visit, they send him to the emergency room. In fact, he went today.
So what is it? Is it a fear of death? Hell no. If you met my father for as little as one hour, then you would know that isn't it. He isn't scared to die. It is the combination of two things,
1) His faith gives him strength. What we may see as an unbearable life style, he has ways of dealing with it. It simply doesn't break will. He still finds joy in life.
2) My father believes in purpose. If God has given him a way to live, then God still has plans for him. Suffering everyday means something completely different to him.
---------------
I should not that, personally, I am agnostic. All of you pining over the idea that the religious fight death hardest because they are scared of death, which does follow some logic, are VERY wrong.
Your responses are also forgetting that... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I'd classify myself as a "Christian" and this is the main reason that I can believe -- while I am totally comfortable with death (not to the extent that I'm going to go play on the freeway) I also see the possibility of "supernatural events" aka "miracles" to occur and thus can see that prolonging a loved one's life via life-support seems plausible, particularly for a younger individual. However, myself, if I was old and have had a full life, I don't think I see the need to be on life support -- I've done what I need to do in this life.
This idea isn't discussed in the originally linked BBC article, but comes up in other articles on the same study (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=7105959&page=1 for example)
So no, I disagree that it's patients being "unsure" about the afterlife or that they're unwilling to accept death. I just think it's relatives that are praying for a miracle.
Re:I can hardly speak for all the "pious" (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like hell to me - an eternity of boredom. The only way heaven would sound good to me is if there was still some kind of progression or something. After a week at a resort I'm ready to leave - can't imagine spending an eternity on one planet.
No kids? No exploring space and discovering new things (assumedly God knows everything anyways..)? No other metaphysical drama beyond "now God lives with us forever"? Pfft. Rather stay dead.
The cultural mandate in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1) was for man to rule over the earth and subdue it. When Gregory Mallory climbed Everest "because it was there," he did so because he was created in the image of God. There is no reason to think that people will regress in technology simply because they are on a perfect planet that has been recreated by God. A good book on this is Randy Alcorn's book "Heaven." His main thesis is heaven (the new earth) will be a lot like this one, but without any of the problems. If you write poetry now, why wouldn't you write [better] poetry then? If you make rockets now, why wouldn't you make [better] rockets then? Heaven won't be boring. Technological advance will accelerate rapidly, as will all of culture.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:3, Interesting)
I was raised, 'in the church' but I haven't stepped foot in one for at least 18 years. And I was never a 'believer' at all. (Parents taking you to church on Sundays doesn't make you a believer)
But I'm not sweating the idea of dying. What happens- happens.
We don't have any idea what exists in the great-beyond, but generally I don't believe it's anything like what the Christians (or any other religion) wants me to believe.
If pressed, I would guess that the light goes out, and it's over.
But who knows, maybe something exciting is behind the door and sticking around for a long time just delays your entry into some great party.
Either way, I watched my father die a long slow death from cancer. That, along with visiting patients in nursing homes, has made me a firm believer in not spending too much time and effort prolonging your inevitable and potentially horrible demise.
Re:Original sin (Score:5, Interesting)
Buddha looked around him and saw life as a bondage and full of suffering, as we are subject to our animal instincts, fears, desires, etc. I have read a Chinese erudite who interprets the concept of original sin as a corruption of this buddhist idea into something where we are born as entirely corrupt (while it could be observed that we inherited cooperative instincts as well) and where we inherited guilt from our ancestors, a quite simplistic and vicious turn of a sound observation of our animal and earthy nature.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:3, Interesting)
That's hardly a massive flaw. Even if he is "supremely worthy of worship" that doesn't imply that not worshiping him is a terrible wrong.
Perhaps he'll be rather displeased that people waste a large proportion of the life he gave them sitting around telling him how good he is.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think you're not afraid of death, try this test: get a friend, and go to the Grand Canyon.
What if I'm afraid of my friend?
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Interesting)
It makes absolutely no sense to me how people can believe in religion when things like this are fairly common.
This is the problem with all Slashdot discussions on religion. All you see is logical analysis of faith and doctrines, pointing out inconsistencies, irrationalities. Of course, most techies have overemphasized rational thinking, and most don't realize that this is but one faculty governing a man's life, and the feeling that this faculty is the one that sits in the big chair is illusory.
And occasionally you see a Christian defend faith, but on the same rationality battlefield, bringing up specious "complex design" or "unprovability of the absence of God" arguments. This is the same fallacy that pits religion against science, as competing descriptions of the world. Inevitably religion loses this concocted battle, because science actually provides a model of the world, while religion is a FEELING.
Why do people believe in religion? And I don't mean people that were born into it and inertially follow the organized traditions, without delving into the questions and their own personal relationship to religion. It is also primitive and uninsightful to attribute the persistence and strength of religions throughout human history to some vague conspiracy-leaning theory about how religion is just another way to hold power and kill people. The people that form the living heart of religions, those that sustain its strength and move it forward (yes, religions progress!) are those that perceive what Jung called the numen, a divine feeling from the inside.
So, why do such people believe in religion? Because the stories of God coincide with the numinous feelings that they themselves experience. The question of where, psychologically, evolutionarily, these feelings come from is irrelevant to these people, since such feelings are often the most real-seeming experiences of one's life, laden with meaning and filling their lives with a sense of purpose.
Now, before you dismiss me as some nutcase, I don't myself have such strong experiences, and am more interested in studying them from a psychological standpoint, but my research consistently points out the ignorance of modern man in regard to what religion really is - a basic perception. Do you believe in sound? Or just hear it?
Of course, it is religion's own fault for not articulating itself better in today's ultra-rational world, and attempting to lay claim to some part of the physical world, through a physical God.
Re:Voice of sanity (Score:5, Interesting)
"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions of years before I was born and
had not suffered the slightest of inconvenience from it." -- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens).
That's as maybe ... but in those billions of years previously, young Mr Twain wasn't aware of what he was missing.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:1, Interesting)
WeÂll all live forever, and end up as one of those "living fogs" as you see on [enter name of star-trek soap opera].
ItÂs called the Singularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
I prefer "space fog"
How it was explained to me. (Score:3, Interesting)
From a memetic point of view, this only makes sense. Any religion that believe offing yourself as fast as possible was a good idea would be like the Ebola of religions, wiping itself out before getting a good shot at jumping hosts.
As the suicide thing was explained to me:
1) Early Christians attempted to get themselves into a state of grace by good works and baptism. Many of them, when they had convinced themselves they had achieved it, tended to suicide rather than taking the risk of backsliding and dying while out of grace. The religion survived mainly because, on the average, it recruited faster than it lost adherents due to suicide.
2) The church officials came up with an interpretation of the scriptures that made committing suicide a sin that would, itself, pull the adherent out of a state of grace. This was, of course, a mortal sin, not because it was particularly evil, but because, being dead, the adherent could no longer repent, atone, and again achieve grace. Oops!
This didn't stop the behavior, of course. But now it became a game of the adherent trying to get somebody ELSE to kill him, rather than doing it himself, and goading them into it in a way that did not constitute sin.
A lot of Christians were in the Roman Empire and annoying Roman officials became a common method. (They had policies of non-interference with the local religions as long as they weren't a problem and of making a painful and fatal example of anyone who upset the operation of their empire.) Things like aggressively preaching using the governor, the general, the bureaucrats, and the legionaries as shining examples of horrible sinners, gang protests, etc. You get the idea. Get killed while trying to propagate the religion and not only hold onto the state of grace but gain some martyr points. The Romans were more than happy to oblige. (Volunteers for the games!) Thus was born the Roman Persecution
3) Eventually the church officials came up with another interpretation to close off that route (and practically made "rendering onto Caesar" a duty, turning the church into something suitable for making the adherents more docile subjects rather than toxic pains-in-the-neck). Roughly that time a Roman emperor converted and gave state sanction to the church. Suicide-by-cop was now out and the church-state connection born.
Now I don't claim that this is accurate. But assuming it happened this way it makes sense in three ways:
- Legitimate (and perhaps divinely inspired) interpretations - straight face value.
- Cynical design by officials to raise their congregations' size and donations, or survival rate.
- Meme-theory evolution, with the pro-survival doctrinal mutations becoming more successful as their hosts live longer and better, propagating this version of the infection farther and faster.
Re:They just aren't ready. (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay. So, you've enjoyed yourself. In a very short time, it's over. You don't go to an old folks home where you can reflect back on how much you enjoyed your life. You are oblivion. Now what? Everything you've done, alone, is gone. It might well have never happened. So what is the point?
It really sounds like you haven't thought it through, yourself.
If life is about enjoying yourself, then extreme hedonism, while doing unlimited harm to those around you to get it, is the only way to go.
On the other end of the spectrum, if we exist in what we leave behind, you should start making endless donations at the nearest sperm bank, to propagate the genes as far and wide as possible. With that part taken care of, start building an army, death ray, whatever, to REALLY make your mark on those who survive you.
After all, your genetic material and your societal impact are the only thing which will last. And in both cases, no matter how much of a mark you make, it's likely to be completely erased within a couple centuries anyhow.
Sounds like atheists are actually the ones whose happiness is conditional on their good health, and just give up. Meanwhile the more religious find a way to be happy, even after intensive medical treatment. In fact, this WAS the conclusion of the study, not the trolling anti-religion spin put on the /. submission.
Of course, the REAL answer is pretty obvious. The most popular forms of religion command their followers to maintain their own life as much as possible. There was a minor controversy when baseless rumors began spreading that Pope John Paul II refused life-extending treatment near the end of his life...
Now, with the Catholic church having spread the doctrine that the faithful are obligated to extend their lives as much and by any means possible, some morons just feel obligated to spin that simple fact around, to try and promote their own agenda.