# data[].attributes.headline
Post #10 -Critical Analysis - All Natural

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #10 -Critical Analysis - All Natural

# data[].attributes.body
Define Problem:

- All natural medicine claimed to have restorative properties are used instead of proven pharmaceuticals.

Gather Information:

-  This source describes the horrible reality behind homeopathic medicine only treatment to illness and disease.

Evaluate Evidence:

- The source is from Scientific American, and is a credible & factual source. The results could be reproduced and scientific method has been followed during this research.

Recognize Assumptions, Emotions, Biases:

- Personal assumptions on all natural treatment are the cause behind preventable deaths, especially in regards to children and young adults.

Synthesize Evidence:

- Some natural remedies contain healing properties, however not all illness or disease can solely be treated or cured by all natural medicine.

Select Best Alternative:

- Other than a combination of natural and synthetic treatment options, I don't believe there is a best alternative for this particular issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #9 -Reason for Belief - Perception & Observation 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #9 -Reason for Belief - Perception & Observation 

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Through observation and how information is perceived, judgement of situation may vary between multiple people in the same setting.

Connection: (Image)
This image illustrates how an object may be able to appear differently from what it is, depending on the perception of the viewer. A candle lit wall may appear as a man.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #8 -Red Flag - Confusing Correlation with Causation

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #8 -Red Flag - Confusing Correlation with Causation

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Implying that there is always cause to every variable without factual proof.

Connection: (Image)
This image shows a car crashed into a tree, whilst a man with a broken leg peers unto the car. Implying the car crashed and was damaged because of the mans broken leg.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
The ideology that alternative medicine "homeopathic" treatment for illness or disease, often branded as being safer then pharmaceuticals for the body.

Connection: (Website)
This article on Scientific American talks about various cases of infant death believed to be caused by Homeopathic Remedies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Case 7682299: Aug. 1, 2010. A mother gives her toddler three homeopathic pills to relieve her teething pain. Within minutes, the baby stops breathing.

"My daughter had a seizure, lost consciousness, and stopped breathing about 30 minutes after I gave her three Hyland's Teething Tablets," the mother later told the Food and Drug Administration. "She had to receive mouth-to-mouth CPR to resume breathing and was brought to the hospital."

The company, Hyland's, promotes "safe, effective, and natural health solutions" that appeal to parents seeking alternative treatments. But the agency would soon hear much more about Hyland's teething products. Staff at the FDA would come to consider Case 7682299 one of the luckier outcomes.

A review of FDA records obtained by STAT under the Freedom of Information Act paint a far grimmer picture: Babies who were given Hyland's teething products turned blue and died. Babies had repeated seizures. Babies became delirious. Babies were airlifted to the hospital, where emergency room staff tried to figure out what had caused their legs and arms to start twitching.

Over a 10-year period, from 2006 to 2016, the FDA collected reports of "adverse events" in more than 370 children who had used Hyland's homeopathic teething tablets or gel, a similar product that is applied directly to a baby's gums. Agency records show eight cases in which babies were reported to have died after taking Hyland's products, though the FDA says the question of whether those products caused the deaths is still under review.

(The agency is also investigating two other deaths tied to teething remedies but declined to confirm the manufacturer of the products or provide the case reports.)

Following an FDA warning in September, Hyland's said that it would no longer manufacture the teething products. But they remained on some store shelves for months, and are still available on the Internet. They likely continue to be used in homes nationwide.

Hyland's, a 114-year-old private company based in Los Angeles, is the nation's largest homeopathic business. It insists its products are safe and says the FDA has failed to show there is a scientific link between them and infant seizures or other complications.

"That doesn't mean that children don't have a sensitivity to a product. There is a lot of sensitivity on kids' parts and we have to watch carefully," said a spokeswoman, Mary Borneman. "It's not something that condemns the entire product line."

Behind each of the FDA case numbers are angry and, in some cases, heartbroken parents. But a STAT examination - and the first detailed look at the case reports - also raises questions over the response of regulators.

It took four years until the FDA pushed Hyland's to reformulate its remedies, in 2010. In the seven years since then, there has been a steady stream of reports of adverse events tied to Hyland's homeopathic teething products.

"The FDA could bring the hammer down on them," said Sarah Sorscher, an attorney for the nonprofit Public Citizen Health Research Group. "But it doesn't. At the point where you have infants being hospitalized and deaths reported, it's simply not acceptable for the agency to delay in taking action."

An FDA spokeswoman defended the agency's handling of the matter.

"It is important to note that while adverse event reports give us some information about a product and serious injuries or deaths related to use of a particular product, they often indicate situations that require additional analysis and do not constitute conclusive evidence of a problem with the product," the spokeswoman, Lyndsay Meyer, said in a statement.

Despite the FDA's difficulty in proving Hyland's products harmed children, some doctors had no doubt.

In case 462749, dated Sept. 15, 2011, a physician sent Hyland's a handwritten note, stating his patient, a 5-month-old girl, was unresponsive for 45 minutes after taking its teething tablets.

"I am sure this was not an allergic reaction," he wrote. "I would like you to report it, find a contact at the FDA, so we can start an investigation and pull this dangerous, unregulated product from the shelves."

One mother wrote the company to say her son's pupils dilated "like marbles with big black eyes." Another described seizures her daughter continued to have after taking the tablets and told the company, "I hate hate hate u for this."

An industry giant in a giant industry

Hyland's and its parent company, Standard Homeopathy Co., are considered major players in the homeopathic market. CEO John P. Borneman comes from a family that has been in the business for generations, and is president of the industry group that publishes the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia, a compendium that serves as the bible of the industry.

The company sells dozens of products for pain relief, stress, sleep problems, allergies, flu, and other maladies.

As with all homeopathic treatments, Hyland's products are based on a theory that patients can benefit from highly diluted natural substances that, in their original form, might make people sick.

Despite a lack of scientific evidence that homeopathic remedies work, they are ubiquitous.

Homeopathy has become a multibillion-dollar industry. Its products are big sellers around the world, and popular with adherents from Cher to Prince Charles. The industry also has political clout: It has been able to exempt itself from many rules proposed by Congress and the FDA over the years.

Unlike pharmaceutical company-produced drugs, homeopathic products don't have to prove that they are effective at treating anything in particular before going on the market. It is left to the FDA's drug division to determine whether they are unsafe after they are on the market - a difficult task since the adverse event reports are generally considered to represent only a fraction of the actual incidents and may lack sufficient information to allow for thorough investigations.

"If I'm working in the emergency room and I have a family that comes in with a seizing infant, I may not have the wherewithal to get the history of homeopathic use," said Dr. Edward W. Boyer, a toxicologist in Harvard Medical School's emergency medicine department.

In some cases, parents assume that products described as natural remedies, as is the case with Hyland's tablets and gels, could not possibly result in complications, and never mention their use to a doctor. Without sufficient evidence of a problem, the FDA lacks what it needs to use the enforcement tools it does have.

For Karinna Talbott, a 26-year-old mother in Colorado Springs, the fact that Hyland's teething products were labeled "natural," made her lower her guard.

"When our fourth kiddo comes around and starts teething at three months, we were like, 'Okay, what can we do to give him some relief?'" Talbott said. "Someone told us about the teething tablets and we thought, 'give them a try.'''

Shortly after her son began taking the tablets, she said, his hands began twitching.

"We didn't correlate it to the teething tablets," Talbott said. "And his symptoms got worse, went to his arms and his feet. Sometimes they all happened together."

Talbott said her doctor was at first uncertain as to the cause. But when they stopped giving him the tablets, the seizures also stopped.

"The neurologist said, maybe he was a little sensitive to the products in the teething tablet."

'Deadly nightshade'

In investigating Hyland's teething products, the FDA focused on an ingredient known as atropa belladonna, an herb known colloquially as "deadly nightshade."

In diluted form, the substance is not expected to pose any health risk. In 2010, however, FDA inspectors who examined Hyland's facilities criticized the company for substandard manufacturing practices and found inconsistent levels of atropa belladonna in its products.

The agency issued a public warning, noting "reports of serious adverse events in children taking this product that are consistent with belladonna toxicity."

It also noted that "infants are very susceptible to the neurotoxicity of drugs" because of how the body distributes and responds to drugs, and noted that "absorption of belladonna from the skin and mouth was fairly rapid. "

The company voluntarily took the products off shelves and agreed to reformulate them, although it insisted they were safe.

"We felt it was the right thing to do so that parents didn't have to be concerned about the product," said Borneman, the spokeswoman.

But the number of serious adverse events tied by the FDA to the products kept climbing. Some pediatricians and neurologists concluded the tablets and gels were the cause. Many parents wrote to the FDA, accusingly, asking why the pills were still on the market.

"My son had 3 of Hyland's Teething Tablets," a mother told FDA on Feb. 13, 2012, noting that the product appeared to have caused several seizures. "I am shocked at the popularity of this product, which is growing, and the lack of knowledge among parents, as well as the lack of warnings on the labels. Parents desperately need to be warned about this product if it is going to stay on the shelves!!!! Please do something!"

In September 2016, the FDA announced that it was investigating more adverse events reports and recommended that consumers stop using Hyland's and other homeopathic teething products and dispose of any in their possession. Some stores, including Target and CVS, which sold Hyland's and other homeopathic teething products, pulled them in response.

The FDA also asked Hyland's to recall its products again. But this time Hyland's stood its ground, and the agency has no authority to enforce a recall of homeopathic products.

Borneman said the company's "pharmacovigilance program," a product safety review system launched after 2010, offers proof that the treatments are safe.

"Homeopathic medicine has a very large margin of safety," she said. "Our testing ensures there's not too much belladonna in any bottle" of tablets.

At the same time, the company decided to stop manufacturing the teething tablets. In an open letter to customers, Hyland's said the FDA warning had "created confusion among parents."

"Putting you in a position of having to choose who to trust in the face of contradictory information is burdensome and undermines the FDA," the company said, while insisting Hyland's products, "including those you already have, are safe for use."

Several weeks ago, on Jan. 27, the FDA issued another warning, saying that laboratory analysis of Hyland's teething tablets found levels of belladonna "sometimes far exceeding the amount claimed on the label." The agency warned consumers not to use the products and to seek medical care immediately if their child has seizures, difficulty breathing, lethargy, muscle weakness, or other problems after using homeopathic teething products.

The FDA also said there was no evidence that they actually worked.

Cracks in the FDA's authority

With concerns about toxic levels of belladonna, and the sheer number of cases of adverse events, some critics - and parents - say the FDA should have moved faster in the case of Hyland's.

But they also acknowledge that the episode underlines the cracks in the agency's regulatory power when it comes to homeopathic products. There is no set mathematical formula or official standard that spells out how many sick or deceased children must be reported before the FDA seizes a company's inventory or levies fines or shuts it down.

Critics say the fact that homeopathic products are generally highly diluted has kept them on the FDA's back burner.

"It's low on their priority list," said Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim, who co-authored a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine last year on the subject. "FDA for a long time just kind of deferred on homeopathic products because they are mostly inert and so diluted. The harm comes from people wasting their money, or diverting them from things that do work."

In the case of some of Hyland's products, however, Kesselheim believes that the toxic levels of belladonna show a substantial safety problem, putting a responsibility on FDA to respond.

One problem the FDA has in doing so is a matter of staffing: The agency has a medical officer review each report from manufacturers, but it doesn't have someone who can routinely follow up with the patient, the patient's family, or physician for missing records necessary to take a serious enforcement action.

"Is it fair to criticize FDA for the time lag between 2010 and now?" says Patricia Zettler, a former FDA counsel and associate law professor at Georgia State University. "I think the agency is in a tough position, with these kinds of products and with adverse event reports in general. They are not necessarily a perfect indication of something happening with a drug."

"That said," Zettler added, "it does sound like this is a product the agency was concerned about. It's tough to parse out whether two reports of seizures should have been enough, or three or 10. There's a balance the agency has to strike between acting quickly on safety information and not overreacting to something that may not actually be caused by the product."

Public Citizen's Sorscher said criminal cases take years to pursue, so the FDA would much prefer voluntary compliance.

"They don't have a mechanism to say, 'this ingredient is unsafe, nobody should sell it,'" she said. "It might be time for Congress to give FDA a standard and say, you can issue a regulation saying no one can make it anymore."

Outraged by the standoff between FDA and Hyland's, Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro introduced a bill last week called the Recall Unsafe Drugs Act. The proposal would give the FDA mandatory recall authority over homeopathic products and drugs.

"Hyland's refusal to recall its teething tablets, despite numerous health and safety warnings from the FDA, is downright shameful," DeLauro said, adding that the company "is choosing instead to prioritize the company's profits and reputation before the safety of our children."

"As it stands the FDA would have to go through an arduous legal process to take action against manufacturers such as Hyland's. This is unacceptable and threatens the health and safety of American families.''

For the parents of Case 10723317, any action would come too late. A mother reported that on July 9, 2014, her 9-month-old daughter died after being given two teething tablets, crushed, for the first time. She gave her infant the tablets, then a bottle, and then left her to sleep. When she checked on her 45 minutes later, she was dead in her crib, beside a puddle of vomit.

Five months later, after reading online reports suggesting babies may experience seizures after taking belladonna, she contacted Hyland's.

"Customer did not request a refund or replacement," noted the Hyland's staffer who filed the report with the FDA. Hyland's also noted that it was not able to test the bottle, because the customer threw it away.

"Due to the limited information provided by the reporter no further investigation is possible at this time of this incident," the company concluded.
Ike Swetlitz contributed reporting. Republished with permission from STAT. This article originally appeared on February 21, 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hundreds of Babies Harmed by Homeopathic Remedies, Families Say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Case 7682299: Aug. 1, 2010. A mother gives her toddler three homeopathic pills to relieve her teething pain. Within minutes, the baby stops breathing. "My daughter had a seizure, lost consciousness, and stopped breathing about 30 minutes after I gave her three Hyland's Teething Tablets," the mother later told the Food and Drug Administration.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Ideological Support is when information or causes are often controlled by opinions that are presented as fact, or not supported by an scientific research or claim.

Connection: (Website)
This is a link to a website designed to support the idea of Raelism, a movement and belief that suggests humans were created by a species of extraterrestrials, and why it is true.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Intelligent Design for Atheists - The Raelian Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Life on Earth was created scientifically by extraterrestrials, the Elohim, who were mistaken for gods by our primitive ancestors. They asked Rael to convey their Messages to humanity and to build an embassy for their return on Earth.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
The idea that there are advanced energies we can harness to alter our state of mind and being.

For example "Chi", "Positive" or "Negative" energies

Connection: (Image)
This image shows the claimed Chakra centers on the body.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Proof by Verbosity is a tactic that one uses in arguments in which intimidation via advanced knowledge or complex theory is taken as cannon.

Connection: (Website)
This article speaks on how and why the moon landings were faked because of impossible circumstances in science during the time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The moon landings were faked (and other science confessions)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dean Burnett: A recent programme asked if we really landed on the moon. That's not all science has lied about

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
A Red Herring is a type of argumentative topic that is an irrelevant top the original topic, and used to divert the debater.

Connection: (Image)
This image shows the immediate confusion felt when someone brings up a total irrelevant point in an argument and also because I couldn't think of any good image to put here.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Old practices usually rooted in tradition. Ancient Wisdom is passed down from generations and sometimes treated as factual. Usually found within medical treatment theories.

Connection: (Website)
This article talks about Televangelists, and how belief can turn into profit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I might be the anti-televangelist.
I'm not on TV.
And I generally don't like talking to strangers about me working in ministry.

It's not that I'm embarrassed by it. Far from it. In everyday interactions with people I actually know, I'm more than happy to talk about it. But especially when I'm traveling or talking to somebody for the first time, I really don't like bringing up the ministry stuff because the conversation usually takes one of 2 turns: either 1)things get really awkward and they immediately stop talking to the religious weirdo, i.e. me or 2)things get really awkward because they suddenly can't stop talking about their faith and it's clear that the two of us are on two very, very different theological pages.

Case in point: a fishing trip last month.

I was in Florida vacationing with family and had the chance to go fishing with my brother. Not knowing the area very well and not being in possession of a boat, we hired a local guide to take us fishing.

Our guide was great. We had a wonderful time and caught a lot of fish.

But about halfway through our trip and in the context of talking about website design of all things, I made the mistake of mentioning my background in ministry. At which point our nice relaxing fishing trip suddenly and unexpectedly turned into a full-on revival. Don't get me wrong. I sincerely appreciated his willingness to share his testimony with us. That was a genuine privilege. It was his impromptu sermon on Christians not fully embracing the gifts of the Spirit that made things a bit awkward.

But just a bit.

It was his disclosure that he had recently sown a seed of faith in the amount of $1,000 to Jimmy Swaggart that made things really awkward.

Although, maybe awkward isn't the right word.

Heartbreaking might be more appropriate.

I obviously know next to nothing about our fishing guide. To be honest, I can't even remember what his name is, but what little I do know about him and the life of anyone running their own single boat fishing charter business in a small town on the Gulf Coast is enough to tell me that he didn't have a $1,000 to throw around. In fact, he had told us earlier in the day that our trip was almost cancelled because his motor had gone out and he had to scrape together (coincidentally?) nearly $1,000 to get someone to fix it ASAP or he would have had to close up shop until the repairs were done. Which meant no fishing charters. Which meant no income for who knew how long.

His life, like the lives of so many of us, is lived pay check to pay check, scrimping and saving whatever he can just to get by.

I couldn't help but think of our fishing guide this morning while I watched John Oliver's masterful exposé of the continuing plague of televangelists that target and then rob in the name of Jesus countless hard working men and women around the world every single day.

If you haven't watched it yet, please do.

It's worth your time and I'll still be here when you're done.

After letting myself enjoy the possibility that maybe, just maybe that Robert Tilton "we've seen midgets" grow clip is from a video I posted on YouTube a couple of years ago and shouting more than one "amen" as Oliver dismantled these crooks, I kept coming back to the same question over and over again in my mind,
How are these people still around? After years and years of exposés revealing where all of this "faith seed" money is really going, how are these televangelists still able to scam so many people out of their money?
I'm not sure there's one easy answer to that question. If there were, maybe we could have gotten rid of them years ago.

Legally, as John Oliver points out in his clip, they aren't doing anything wrong. They're protected by the IRS as a religious organization and therefore can solicit donations from whoever is willing to send a check their way. (To drive home just how ridiculous this legal loophole is, Oliver decided to become a televanglist himself and designate his television studio as a church.)

I don't know if or even how the law could be changed to prevent this sort of thing, but either way, legal loopholes are just one part of the equation that continues to allow scamgelists™ to extort money from the faithful.

More than the exploiting of legal loopholes, I think a much bigger driving force behind the success of scamgelists™ is the simple fact that desperation and need still exist in the world in profound ways. I mean, it's not a coincidence that it's usually the poorest among us give the most to these sanctified scam artists. Desperation drives desperate action.

People need an income, they need jobs, they need healing, they need [fill in the blank], and, sadly, as long as there is desperate need there will always be people willing and able to exploit that need for their own financial gain.When you bring God or faith into that equation and convince the desperate faithful that divine intervention is on the way if they only do this one "simple" thing, it's hard to say "no" when you've seem to have no where else to turn - and believe that God can and will do anything for you, including sending you cash.

That's what so repugnant about the prosperity gospel.

It's not just the fact that it stands in fundamental contradiction to the life and teaching of Jesus.

It's utterly repugnant because it uses faith to manipulate and exploit the least of these in the name of God in order to strip them of what little they have so that those who have much can have even more.

Which is why the Church must do more to speak out against the utterly evil nature of the prosperity gospel.

Along with the legal loopholes and the desperation of those in need, I think part of the reason scamgelists™ are still able to practice their nefarious trade is the fact the Church doesn't do more to confront, condemn, and counteract their wicked ways.

Sure, most people you and I know are quick to condemn scamgelism™ and its many high priests, but too often we too easily dismiss them without anything resembling a vigorous challenge. We laugh them off or in passing maybe brand them as heretics and then move on. For whatever reason - maybe because we've come believe they've already been exposed as frauds and aren't as prolific as they once were - we usually don't really give much effort into denouncing their sin and/or helping those they exploit.

But scamgelists™ are still as problematic as they've ever been and their prosperity gospel, you could argue, is even more prolific in its influence than ever before.

I'm sure you've heard that one of the few places on earth in which Christianity is actually growing is the Global South. What you may not be as familiar with is the form of Christianity that is often spreading in the Global South. Though it is not a monolithic movement, to be sure, the prosperity gospel is (understandably) fueling much of this growth and has been for some time. And who could blame people for embracing it? If you've got nothing and someone finally shows up promising you everything or at least something - in the name of God no less - wouldn't you take them up on their offer?

I'm sure I probably would.

But what this means is much of the Christianity that is spreading rapidly around the world is not that different from the scamgelism™ we see on TV every day and give little thought to. Which means while most of us in the States go on with our lives confident in the knowledge that the prosperity gospel has been thoroughly debunked and its victims protected or at least their numbers dramatically minimized, in reality countless millions of people living in some of the most desperate conditions on earth are being exploited by scamgelists™ both on TV and in their homeland who promise prosperity and success and health and well-being and every dream they can imagine if their audience will just come to Jesus...and sow a monetary seed of faith.

The least of these are being preyed upon like never before, but most of us are either oblivious to their exploitation or too concerned with their conversion to care.

Which leads to the other root cause of scamgelist™ plague: bad theology.

On the surface, this one is kind of a now brainer. Obviously the prosperity gospel is bad theology.

But that's not what I'm talking about. Or at least not exactly what I'm talking about.

Absolutely, there is bad theology at play in the formation and acceptance of the prosperity gospel. You can only arrive at the conclusion that God wants you to be rich by completely ignoring or cleverly manipulating the life and teaching of Jesus (and the rest of Scripture). Again, this seems obvious, but when you're desperate for help, it suddenly becomes much easier to overlook bad theology.

But there's an even more problematic theological issue at play.

Theology should shape our lives, but too often theology is the end goal. In other words, what matters most is believing the right things, the everyday things of life are a distance second in importance in light of eternity. Therefore, as long as people are getting saved, we tend to give a free pass to the people doing the saving (and their methods) by saying things like "God works in spite of..." or "Well, at least some people are getting saved."

Absolutely, God does work in spite of people and their bad intentions, but when it comes to scamgelists, this sort of rhetoric is just a euphemism for something we don't want to admit: we don't really care all that much about the victims of scamgelists and their prosperity gospel.

All we really care about is the chance to add another convert to our eternal ledger.

We don't really care about their day-to-day lives because if we did, we wouldn't be so Machiavellian in our faith.

We would be Christian.

If we actually cared about the least of these and the lives they live, the possible end (conversion) wouldn't be enough to justify turning a blind eye to the millions being exploiting by scamgelists™ and their prosperity gospel every single day,

If we were really Christian, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, and caring for the sick would be every bit as important to us - as it is for Jesus - as whether or not the person we're caring for has had a moment of intellectual assent.

And maybe therein lies the biggest reason scamgelists™ continue to be so successful.

We as a Church just aren't doing enough to meet the needs of the people they exploit.

Think for a moment how radically different the Church of Acts was from the Church today.

The Church of Acts "had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need." Who would bother "sowing a seed of faith" to a sleezeball on TV if all of their needs were already met? I can't imagine there would be very many.

While the Church today certainly does a lot for those in need in our communities, the sheer volume of time and energy and money we devote to the least of these around us pales in comparison to the amount of money and energy and time we pour into building construction, worship production, and a never-ending number of ever-better programing that often does more to entertain those with much than it does to serve those in need.

So, given how radically the focus has shifted in the Church in the past 2,000 years from caring for needs to caring about right ideas and how little the level of desperation has abated for those in need over that same period, is it really any surprise that scamgelists™ are still able to peddle their prosperity gospel even though they are continually exposed as frauds?

Again, I do believe there are a multitude of factors that ultimately come together to drive people to finance private planes for sleazy televangelists.

But I can't help but think that if we as a Church did a better job of meeting the needs of those they exploit, it would go a long way towards putting scamgelists™ out of business for good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Are Televangelists Still Able To Scam People Out Of Their Hard Earned Money? | Zack Hunt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I might be the anti-televangelist. I'm not on TV. And I generally don't like talking to strangers about me working in ministry. It's not that I'm embarrassed by it. Far from it. In everyday interactions with people I actually know, I'm more than happy to talk about it.