Following on from a parliamentary committee recommending all public funds be withdrawn from homeopathy in the UK, members of the British Medical Association have declared the alternative medicine to be “witchcraft” and demanded a ban.
Hundreds of members at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference of junior doctors have passed a motion attacking the alternative medicine and other remedies they claim have no scientific basis to support them.
Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA’s junior doctors committee in England, told the conference:
“Homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace that nestling between the National Hospital for Neurology and Great Ormond Street [in London] there is a homeopathic hospital paid for by the National Health Service (NHS)”.
The NHS is the equivalent of Medicare in Australia.
The announcement supports recommendations from the The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee after a parliamentary enquiry called an “evidence check”. In a 273 page report, summarising the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, the committee concluded that
* The NHS should cease funding homeopathy
* Recommend no further clinical trials of homeopathy.
* Evidence shows homeopathy doesn’t work.
* Explanations for why homeopathy works are “scientifically implausible.”
* Committee views homeopathy as placebo.
The report was tabled with evidence from hundreds of submissions from scientists.
From the report, the Committee wrote;
“In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos.”
The Committee concluded;
“Given that the existing scientific literature showed no good evidence of efficacy that further clinical trials of homeopathy could not be justified.”
“We do not doubt that homeopathy makes some patients feel better. However, patient satisfaction can occur through a placebo effect..When doctors prescribe placebos, they risk damaging the trust that exists between them and their patients.”
Gordon Lehany, chairman of the BMA’s junior doctors committee in Scotland, said it was wrong that some junior doctors were spending part of their training rotations in homeopathic hospitals, learning principles that had no place in science.
He told the conference in London:
“At a time, when the NHS is struggling for cash, we should be focusing on treatments that have proven benefit. If people wish to pay for homeopathy that’s their choice, but it shouldn’t be paid for on the NHS until there is evidence that it works.”
The UK currently had four NHS funded homeopathic hospitals, in Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow and London. A fifth hospital in Kent closed in 2009 when NHS funding was withdrawn. Latest figures show 54,000 patients are treated each year at four NHS homeopathic hospitals at an estimated cost of £4 million.
Homeopathy was invented 200 years ago by the German physician, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, and is based on a ‘like-treats-like’ concept: that the symptoms of an illness can be treated by minute quantities of the same substance that caused it. But remedies are diluted to such a degree, there is virtually no chance of the active ingredient existing in the final product.
The concept of “Homeopathy, there’s nothing in it” made headlines around the world last year when mass homeopathic overdoses were conducted outside of pharmacies across the globe. The campaign was organised in protest at the highly respected Boots chain of pharmacies in the UK selling their own range of homeopathic “remedies”.
During the parliamentary evidence check, the professional standards director for the Boots high street pharmacy chain, Paul Bennett admitted to selling homeopathic remedies because they are popular, not because they work. In a statement, which has since been referred to as a huge foot-in-mouth, he said;
“There is certainly a consumer demand for these products,” but “I have no evidence to suggest they are efficacious”.
Homeopathy also publicly funded in Australia
In Australia, homeopathic consultations are not directly covered by Medicare, but GPs can bill for any consultation deemed “by the majority of professional peers as clinically relevant”, a Medicare spokesperson said.
Dr Ken Harvey, of the school of public health at La Trobe University, objects to the use of public money on placebo;
“I don’t believe there’s an evidence base to homeopathy, and I don’t think it should be financed by public money,”
“If a doctor wants to offer homeopathic consultations then it should be done separately…at the patient’s own expense.”
Dr Harvey referred to a New South Wales GP who offers homeopathy consultations as being fully reimbursed by Medicare. The GP, Dr Michael Cleary was adamant;
“The people who are using [homeopathy] are [also] taxpayers,” he said.
“If I was a person who wasn’t allowed to get a Medicare rebate from seeing my [homeopathic] doctor, I’d be wondering why I’m paying the levy.
Professor Mike Daube, president of the Public Health Association of Australia, also called on the TGA and Department of Health to conduct a review of homeopathy.
“There’s a long history to homeopathic practice, but we need to know whether it’s appropriate in the light of 21st-century science,” he said.
Browse Timeline
Comments ( 50 )
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jason Gantenberg, Paul Browne, Paul Browne, Andrew Gould, Dr Rachael Dunlop and others. Dr Rachael Dunlop said: Aussie public health officials support removal of homeopathy from Medicare http://tinyurl.com/2333py3 (blog post) #ten23 #quack [...]
Tweets that mention » UK doctors condemn homeopathy as witchcraft and demand ban -- Topsy.com added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 12:10 am[...] is witchcraft” Doctors are coming together to ban public funding of homeopathy in the UK. I couldn’t be happier. Homeopathy is a bunch of “woo” and absolutely [...]
“Homeopathy is witchcraft” « A posteriori added these pithy words on May 31 10 at 12:06 pmAndyD added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 12:20 am“If I was a person who wasn’t allowed to get a Medicare rebate from seeing my [homeopathic] doctor, I’d be wondering why I’m paying the levy.
.
What a bizarre position. I wonder if there’s anything he thinks shouldn’t be covered by Medicare as long as someone who pays taxes thinks it should be?
.
I would feel much better if I had a new car – I’m certain of it. Should new cars be covered by Medicare? As a person who pays taxes and who can’t get a Medicare rebate for getting a new car, I DO wonder why I’m paying the levy.
Maggie added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 12:25 am@AndyD, as I was writing that I thought exactly the same thing. Why do I have to pay for someone else’s sugar and water so that they feel better? I do not pay the levy for placebo.
.This loop hole of
GPs can bill for any consultation deemed “by the majority of professional peers as clinically relevant”,
.needs to be closed shut for magic water. The sooner the better.
mouse added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 6:59 amSo I have a question for the U.K. readers. Is it just because I’m a yank that I’m uncomfortable with labeling homeopathy as witchcraft in the process of (rightfully) denouncing it scientifically? I mean, that’s kind of weird right? Or does that just have a completely different context for me than it does folks in the rest of the world (Salem witch trials and all that rot)?
Dave The Happy Singer added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 10:45 amRe:
It is a disgrace that nestling between the National Hospital for Neurology and Great Ormond Street [in London] there is a National Hospital for Homeopathy
It may not be clear to non-Brits that Great Ormond Street refers to the well renowned paediatric hospital.
Mick Vagg added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 2:56 pmCongratulations to these outspoken defenders of common sense. It is heartening to see that some of junior colleagues in the UK are not shirking their duty to confront aberrant healthcare practices and ensure that public funds are well spent.
oh please! added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 3:16 pm@mouse
No it’s not ’cause your a yank. It’s the sort of language often used by those who can’t successfully argue their stance.
oh please! added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 3:32 pmHmm, here’s an interesting thought for those that still have the ability to generate their own.
In clinical trials, the placebo and the drug a pretty well neck & neck for effectiveness.
Just for Andy: http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect
So even if a person is given sugar water, if they believe that it will cure them, it has the same chance of doing so as a drug, no?
hmm, interesting questions arise from that.
Does anyone know of any trials where ONLY a placebo was given to cure an ailment? That would be interesting.
Maggie added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 3:40 pm@ohplease I suggest you read the 273 page report from The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee before stating “It’s the sort of language often used by those who can’t successfully argue their stance.” I think you’ll find plenty of evidence for the lack of efficacy of homeopathy, when compared to placebo.
Maggie added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 3:50 pm@ohplease SIGH. No. If you give a person water instead of surgery and/or chemotherapy for cancer, they will certainly not have the same chance of a cure. Even if they close their eyes and believe real hard. And you will not find trials where only a placebo is given to cure an ailment, because it is unethical. Consider the ideal study to examine the efficacy of vaccines. Select a group of kids, randomize them to 2 rooms, vaccinate one lot with the vaccine, one with placebo, then fill both rooms with infectious bacteria/virus of your choice. Wait. Not ethical.
MedTek added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 5:34 pmI think the use of the word “witchcraft” is unfortunate, because it implies some sort of black art. Homeopathy is nothing of the sort. It’s a simple sham taking advantage of the placebo effect, combined with a bit of sympathetic talk and pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
.I think the word “witchcraft” was used by the BMA to imply the use of magic potions (eye of newt, toe of frog) in the practice. In that vein, they’re not far off.
.
AndyD added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 6:09 pmPlacebos present an interesting dilemma. On one hand where they seem to work they offer a safe way to “treat” a supposed ailment. On the other, they require “lying” to the patient. I don’t think any regular posters here are ignorant of the situation.
.
The question here is should lying to the patient – or giving them whatever they think will make them feel better – be subsidised by taxpayers?
oh please! added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 7:10 pmMaggie, I’m just thinking out loud, so don’t shoot me.
.I wasn’t so much thinking of vaccines but drugs in general. I know it would be unethical to do what you’re suggesting with a vaccine (not that far removed from paying parents to have their children experimented on).
Let’s say you have a group of people with lets say dermatitis.
.Lets say there’s drug x on the market which, in it’s clinical trials, was about as effective as the placebo.
If that is the case I’m sure it would stand up as an ethical argument that a placebo be used instead of drug x on the group of people – it’s about as effective after all.
.I guess the results would be similar to the clinical trial. The advantage would be there would be no side affects. The disadvantage would be big pharma would lose money.
oh please! added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 7:14 pmSo: 2 groups of 100 sick people in each.
1 group gets the placebo
1 gets the drug
45 people in each group are “healed”Why then, is the drug any good? The 45% in the “drug group” would have healed anyway (placebo effect).
It can’t be that simple, what have I missed?
Maggie added these pithy words on May 18 10 at 9:04 pm@ohplease, sorry for coming across as grumpy. It’s just that science is not black and white. Yes, it’s true that in some cases, placebos are as effective as the drug – for example, anti-depressants are a very good example. But not all drugs are made just for money. You used the example of dermatitis. This is usually a hypersensitivity reaction, so the immune system is overactive. It has been clearly demonstrated that steroids (either topical or oral) do have an effect suppressing the immune system in this case and alleviating symptoms.
.
You also mention “losing money”. Don’t forget Big Homeo is also very big business, hell it doesn’t even cost them for active ingredients! Water and sugar is pretty cheap, compared to the cost of basic science, drug development, manufacturing, clinical trials (phase I, II, III, and IV), post marketing surveillance etc. The average cost to get a drug to market is greater than or equal to 10 million bucks.
.
After 200 years of homeopathy, hundreds of clinical trials, huge amounts of money spent on said trials, and still no effect beyond placebo, I reckon it’s time to spend our time and money elsewhere.
AndyD added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 1:26 amAs I understand it, anti-depressants are better than placebo in more-severe cases of depression but not so much in moderate cases. This point has not been lost on those who condemn quackery. I’ve seen it mentioned several times on sceptical blogs. The less-than-exemplary ways of big pharma is also a common talking point, especially on Ben Goldacre’s blog.
.
oh please – (other than anti-depressants) do you have a specific example of a real drug which has performed no better than placebo in quality trials.
.
As I see it, the question of prescribing placebo is a quasi-political one in as much as it involves opinions, not just facts. The further question is whether people with no genuine medical training (or worse, anti-medical training as it appears is too often the case) should be allowed to sell placebos or medical advice. So perhaps the answer is to find an ethical framework by which qualified medical practitioners can prescribe placebo treatments.
.
This still leaves the problem of reinforcing delusions by medicalising what are actually non-medical problems and letting people continue to think they really do have a problem they don’t have.
.
I’m surprised that someone who can see little but greed in pharmaceuticals can, at the same time, defend the selling of “nothing”, often at a high price, to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist, purely on the basis that it will supposedly “do no harm”. Of course, when there is a real problem, treating it with wishful thinking is very risky indeed.
oh please! added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 2:08 pmAndy,
I haven’t got the time (or will) to try & drill down to find the placebo = drug studies. There has been a fair bit written about how significant the placebo effect is (admittedly mostly anti-depressants). I figure that there is also the question of how many taking the drug responded, not to the drug, but the placebo effect. This would put the 2 effects on an even more equal footing. No idea how anyone would work out that calculation tho.
I’m not particularly advocating that doctors start tricking their patients, but it surely must be an area that is worth evolving. The mind is more powerful than modern science will admit (would you like Emoto’s link again? lol).
.2 other things:
Both are questions for Maggie (anyone can jump in):
My friend that I mentioned on another page here – his wife attends a mother’s group.
One of the other mums attended a vaccination information session at the children’s hospital here in melbourne.
She asked how much aluminium was in the MMR shot (which their kids are due for) and was told she’d have to ring the manufacturer.
When she did she was told that they could not divulge that information.
Wish I had more info but that’s all he could tell me.
The obvious question – why wouldn’t they tell her?
Needless to say, her child is not getting the MMR shot.
.Lastly,
I posted this link on another page,
what’s your take on it Maggie?
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/124/9/1821
cheers
oh please! added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 2:25 pmJust had a look at Facebook & Meryl has dug up this video – it’s a couple of years old.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foSYnrRYQew&feature=related
It’s a great explanation of why people like me don’t trust big pharma.
I know it’s been stated here that big pharma can be less than ethical at times, but I don’t get the impression that anyone here really takes the issue that seriously. It feels a bit like a mother saying “yes my child can be a little naughty at times”.
These guys control the whole game so when you talk about evidence how can we trust that it’s not biased?
Bastard Sheep added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 4:00 pmBy looking at the actual studies, how they were conducted and the results. If they are well performed they go in to enough detail that the facts cannot be hidden, twisted or manipulated the way most news articles on these studies are.
Maggie added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 4:19 pmExcept that they don’t. In many cases, they don’t control the basic science, which is often done in unis and independent institutes. After all the hard work has been done, and the science well and truly established and demonstrated to be real in the peer review literature, they come along and buy the patents. Then they pay for the clinical trials (which we can’t afford to do) and the manufacture and distribution of the drugs. Sometimes the researchers benefit, but not often. (Paul Offit is an example). I have explained this to you before @ohplease. Do I have to repeat myself to you perpetually? You seem to be missing the point that Big Pharma can not make up their own science. There are years and years and years of maths, chemistry, biology, physiology, immunology etc etc etc that combine to make that product work. You make it sound as if they decide they want to make some dosh, invent an illness and make a nice little pill. It doesn’t work like that.
.
Now you really are beginning to test my patience.
Maggie added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 5:15 pmI have read the abstract of this paper – I’ll take a closer look when I have time.
oh please! added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 7:05 pm@BS so we need to investigate every drug that we are considering using, analyse the clinical trials, check the references of those conducting the study, snoop for information that has been hidden from us etc etc?
oh please! added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 7:28 pmMaggie
There are years and years and years
If you had of included one more “years” you might have convinced me.
Did I provide the wrong link?
Did I accidentally provide a link to a 3 Stooges episode where they were doctors?
Did you not see how much Big Pharma spends on “educating” our doctors and the how much they spend to keep them “educated”
Did you not see what they do to doctors that question the safety of one of their money spinners?
Do you think it’s any different for a doctor who publicly questions the safety of vaccines?
Collignon is walking a fine line.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/340/may04_2/c2419All you can do is defend, defend, defend
against all the evidence and you have the gall to tell me that you are losing patience.
So let me get this right – your argument is that we should put up with dodgy trials, standover tactics, pay-offs, ghost writing, omission of “poor” results, etc etc etc because they pay for it?.
And
Invent an illness?
Would you like me to let you know how a group of Boffins get together occasionally to invent new mental diseases? These diseases are voted in! There’s science for you.
Their book of “mental madness” is then passed on to big pharma who duly develop psychotropic drugs for every disease listed .
These drugs are not only a scam, they are dangerous and deadly.
So in response to your statement You make it sound as if they decide they want to make some dosh, invent an illness and make a nice little pill. It doesn’t work like that you are wrong wrong wrong, it does work like that.
AndyD added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 7:29 pmoh please: hope you have informed your fried of the toxin risk of breastfeeding and infant formula…
.
Breast milk, for example, contains approximately 40 micrograms of aluminum per liter, and infant formulas contain an average of approximately 225 micrograms of aluminum per liter…
.
The question is, do you or you friend have the faintest idea what to do with this information? I don’t – and I demonstrably know a lot more about chemistry than you do. If she had been told how much “aluminium” was in the vaccine – what was her next step?
.
What if they had said “absolutely none” (as appears to be the case form a cursory search)?
.
Given that it has been in vaccines for over 70 years, can you point to some data that suggests she should reasonably fear a given quantity of aluminium adjuvant in a given vaccine dose? Or is she just another victim of scare-mongering from people who don’t know the difference between an element and a compound and refuse to accept that we ingest toxins every day and that we’d get very ill if we didn’t ingest some of them?
Michael Kingsford Gray added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 8:28 pm“oh please!” continues the endless logical fallacy of ‘tu quoque’.
It is getting tedious.
Oh please, please address the point at issue, rather than divert blame like a broken record.
oh please! added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 8:29 pmAndy wow,
you are well trained.
Here we are talking about just how corrupt big pharma appears to be and to defend your position you actually use a big pharma site.
It’s a bit like saying “judge, this man is not lying, how do I know? Because he said so”
And also you miss, or ignore, the point. A company is proposing to inject a mothers baby with a substance – the mother asks how much of a particular ingredient is in that substance and is told that that information can’t be divulged.
Also I just spent 5 minutes trying to find the ingredients for the MMR shot used in Australia – I failed. Let me know how long it takes you.
While you’re at it let me know how aluminium injected into one’s arm travels through ones body & how it is eventually expelled (and what proportion) and where the remainder resides – compared to when one ingests aluminium (to make it easy you can use aluminum hydroxide).
Maggie added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 8:41 pm@ohplease I haven’t yet watched the video. My reply was in response to your circular arguments. And nowhere have I said we should put up with dodgy trials, standover tactics, pay-offs etc. You have not provided any evidence for the claims you make about Boffins inventing new mental diseases. Provide some and we can discuss it.
AndyD added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 10:24 pmHere we are talking about just how corrupt big pharma appears to be and to defend your position you actually use a big pharma site.
.
Okay, I can’t be bothered trying to work out how you deem that site to be a product of big pharma – except for the lack of lizard people stories and stuff – but here’s a scare site for you if you prefer.
.
Look at the long list of “chemicals” they think are in the MMR shot and you can bet fro the rest of their list that if they thought the doctor left it near an aluminium frying pan, they’d mention it.
.
As for the biochemistry lesson, you’re the one making the claims that it’s “deadly” and advising parents to stay well away from anything you, personally, don’t have a PhD-level understanding of, so it’s up to you to show the evidence. I seriously wonder how you survive in a world where you’re surrounded by risks of probability levels you couldn’t possibly hope to compute.
.
The troll meter is back on high. Time for a bit more of that “sorry, I had a bad day and I’m really just trying to understand” stuff.
AndyD added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 10:27 pmOkay, I bothered to look…
.
NNii is dedicated to providing the latest scientific information on immunizations to the public, healthcare providers, policy makers, and the media. Neither NNii nor its sponsoring corporation, I4PH, accept any financial support from the pharmaceutical industry or the federal government.
AndyD added these pithy words on May 19 10 at 11:13 pmFor all the good it will do (not really, I know), this seems like as good a time as any to link to ToddW’s detailed comments on vaccine additives
Bastard Sheep added these pithy words on May 20 10 at 10:51 am@OhPlease! Yes, if you’re that paranoid about it. If you’re not then just use the FDA and other authorities as a guide. They’re independent of the manufacturers.
Maggie added these pithy words on May 20 10 at 1:10 pmohplease criticises @AndyD for citing a source he incorrectly thinks is linked to “Big Pharma”, but posts a link to a video from the AVN which Meryl linked to (Yahoo! group, message #43788, Wed, 19 May, 2010) from Mercola’s site? Interesting.
AndyD added these pithy words on May 20 10 at 1:53 pmMaggie, just for me, are you able to check the stats and confirm those last couple of comments were really from “oh please”? I know we’ve seen an alternating pattern of conspiracy-enquiry-conspiracy but the recent comments seem “different”.
Maggie added these pithy words on May 20 10 at 3:45 pmThe last five comments from the person identifying as @ohplease all came from the same email and IP address.
oh please! added these pithy words on May 20 10 at 4:14 pmPeople thanks for the conversations but I think I’ve had enough.
You are convinced that you’re right.
I’m convinced that I’m right.
Our different views probably spring from our core beliefs.
You holding science in such high regard is probably where we differ most.Possibly, Andy, you’ve seen a little extra frustration creep in which is why my recent comments might “seem different”.
Cheers for now
AndyD added these pithy words on May 20 10 at 5:28 pmOnce again, and I’m sure Ive mentioned this before, I remain absolutely amazed by people who use computers and the internet to cast doubt on science. Bizarre.
.
If your alternate reality, driven by some intelligent cosmic force, is so much better than the one we inhabit, why don’t you use astral projection, remote viewing and psychic communication instead of complex electronics? Could it be that, when tested, your “reality” falls flat on its face?
oh please! added these pithy words on May 20 10 at 9:40 pmGeez Andy for some-one that gets so dark on me when I assume things, you’ve just done a pretty good job of it yourself.
Maggie
re “making up diseases”
There’s a DVD called “Making a Killing” – worth watching.
here’s some info about it:
http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com/2008/11/making-killing-scientology-video-blasts.html
cheers
Maggie added these pithy words on May 21 10 at 12:04 amOh @ohplease, surely you’re not serious. Now you link to the CCHR, a front group for the Church of Scientology? My goodness, really? *sigh*
.
The AVN, Mercola and now a cult? You are from Australia are you not? Have you not seen the accusations against this “church” across three media oultlets in the last 3 days – to say the least (and many more prior)? Do you know what you are linking to?.
Former top Scientologist speaks out
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2904232.htm.
Scientologist under fire over cover-up claims
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2904211.htm
.
Scientology president’s daughter slams ‘toxic’ church
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2903129.htm
.
Today Tonight – Scientology expose by daughter of Aus President – Today Tonight 19/05/2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50afhCgpT9U
.
Scientology expose by daughter of Aus President – A Current Affair 19/05/2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnEzicUOV_g
.
SCIENTOLOGY UNMASKED ‘Sunday Night’ Channel 7 News 14/03/10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ienrqeDLg_c
.
Surely you don’t think I am that stupid. I can only hope you are joking. Stop with the trolling.
Maggie added these pithy words on May 21 10 at 12:29 amIn the blog on your link the following quote appears;
Speaking of FDA Advisory Committees, CCHR points out what we’ve all been saying for years: these committees are loaded with conflicts of interests — physicians who have ties to the drug industry who recommend drugs for approval.
.
Please show me where the CoS does not have a conflict of interest.
Maggie added these pithy words on May 21 10 at 12:41 amre: my previous comment, actually don’t bother, I already know.
.
cheers
oh please added these pithy words on May 21 10 at 7:30 amSigh, why can’t I stay away.?
The blog site is part of CCHR? I don’t think so but I might be wrong.
Also my opinion and yours of the SoC are probably in sync but I’m not a big fan of shooting the messenger before I hear what he has to say.
After I watched the DVD I did seek some other opinions such as Mack’s. If one can get just look at the info presented it seems that it’s pretty accurate. I don’t think Mack would have a soft spot for SoC.
And let’s keep it accurate:
I’ve never linked to Mercola, the AVN or CCHR.
And no I don’t think your stupid, I think that you like wearing your pharma colored glasses a little too much.
oh please added these pithy words on May 21 10 at 9:29 amWorking away thinking about the shooting the messenger idea.
BTW, a little dyslexic this morning, CoS not SoC was what I meant above.
So the theory is that the CoS are a pack of fools and whatever they say or do will be “bad”.
How does that sit with the Uniting Chruch (all organised religions are “bad”) canceling the AVN’s venue?
From comments here & on Facebook the UC did a “good” thing and was even congratulated by many who think the UC are “bad”.
So this rule of “shooting the messenger” (often before the message is received)applies, what, some of the time?
Maggie added these pithy words on May 21 10 at 11:23 amHow does that sit with the Uniting Chruch (all organised religions are “bad”) canceling the AVN’s venue?
Co$ is a cult.
AndyD added these pithy words on May 21 10 at 12:51 pm@Maggie, I think your spam trap might be set on “hair trigger” again.
AndyD added these pithy words on May 21 10 at 1:03 pmI’ll try again. Sorry if you get this multiple times. The cosmos hates me today…
.
Geez Andy for some-one that gets so dark on me when I assume things, you’ve just done a pretty good job of it yourself.
.
What assumptions? You’ve stated directly that you believe in some sort of intelligence of nature and scoffed at any anti-theistic sentiment so if you don’t believe in some all-powerful cosmic force today then you might want to take the blue pills, not the red ones. And your anti-science views are clear for all to see, even without you explicitly dismissing the value of science as you did above.
.
Co$ is a cult.
.
A modern alien-worshipping cult at that. Scientology doesn’t have the excuse of being pre-scientific or thousands of years of naive societal fellowship. It was just made up 50-odd years ago by a science fiction writer. Great source of medical advice.
.
The blog site is part of CCHR? I don’t think so but I might be wrong.
.
The article you linked to was a Scientology article – it said it in the headline and the link URL above. The opening paragraph of the article (did you even read it?) is…
.
I stumbled across “Making A Killing” — a new video produced by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), which is a non-profit organization founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology (my bolding)
.
Given your track record, I can see how you might have missed that though. What next, David Icke and the lizard people?
.
I’ve never linked to Mercola,…
.
Yes you have, in the “Mums’ Magazine” thread. Try to keep up.
.
And no I don’t think your stupid, I think that you like wearing your pharma colored glasses a little too much.
.
As opposed to blinkers I guess. See Maggie, if the data supports big-pharma, the data must be wrong. Joe, Meryl and Tom Cruise say so and they should know because they aren’t a part of big-pharma and anyone who isn’t a part of big-pharma can be presumed to be honest and omniscient.
.
oh please, I seriously don’t see how, given your primary-school-level understanding of chemistry (and that might be a little generous), you feel you can lecture a cell biologist on the subject and tell them they are the one ignoring the evidence.
.
Poe’s Law means it’s always difficult to differentiate parody from blind fundamentalism but I think the troll question is finally settled.
oh please! added these pithy words on May 21 10 at 3:57 pmalternate reality, driven by some intelligent cosmic force, is so much better than the one we inhabit, why don’t you use astral projection, remote viewing and psychic communication
.
These are what are called assumptions, which you are really really good at (as long as accuracy is not part of the criteria). Apart from a possible need to feel or seem superior I’m not sure why you so consistently and predictably go down this track,
.
Co$ is a cult.
Yes but the DVD is still worth taking note of.
Best definition I’ve ever seen for a cult is:” the church down the road from your church” – can’t remember who said it.
.
The article you linked to was a Scientology article – it said it in the headline and the link URL above. The opening paragraph of the article (did you even read it?) is…
.
What in God’s name (sorry) are you talking about?
The article was about a DVD made by the CCHR which is part of the CoS.
Try to follow me on this: if you look at the page address in your browser now the last bit will be “uk-doctors-condemn-homeopathy-as-witchcraft-and-demand-ban/….”
But the article on this page was not written by UK doctors was it?
No
So, in the same way the article I linked to was not written by the CoS. It was not about Scientology. It was not written by a Scientologist.
Are we on the same page now?.
I’ve never linked to Mercola,…
.
Yes you have, in the “Mums’ Magazine” thread. Try to keep up.
.
Well done rain man, I’d forgotten that – it was before I said I wouldn’t link to any of those types of sites. Never mind that there was none of Mercola’s opinion on that page, it was simply the testimony from Graham regarding Vioxx which could have been found on other more “reputable” sites.
So now you’re settling for these little, irrelevant wins?
.And no I don’t think your stupid, I think that you like wearing your pharma colored glasses a little too much.
.
As opposed to blinkers I guess. See Maggie, if the data supports big-pharma, the data must be wrong. Joe, Meryl and Tom Cruise say so and they should know because they aren’t a part of big-pharma and anyone who isn’t a part of big-pharma can be presumed to be honest and omniscient.
.
Once again, excellent job of making assumptions but as usual, totally incorrect and ultimately just more time wasting..
oh please, I seriously don’t see how, given your primary-school-level understanding of chemistry (and that might be a little generous), you feel you can lecture a cell biologist on the subject and tell them they are the one ignoring the evidence.
.
Your insistence at attacking me is highly amusing (at least for me). I know that you are an “internet” expert on all things, as anyone could appear to be who put in the time.
You’re stuck on the fact that I assumed aluminium referred to an element and not a compound. Let’s just keep whipping away with that one for a little longer shall we.
Or maybe I could retaliate with some of your loopy analogies, the parachute comes easily to mind.
And yes I know that Maggie is a cell biologist and if I seem like I’m lecturing her please pull me up, it’s not the intention. But please be specific, your generalisations are becoming tiresome.
.
Poe’s Law means it’s always difficult to differentiate parody from blind fundamentalism but I think the troll question is finally settled.
.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
“a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community”
This fits your last comment perfectly. Maggie is it you that I talk to to complain about a suspected troll?
AndyD added these pithy words on May 21 10 at 6:44 pmThese are what are called assumptions,…
.
You don’t believe in an intelligent cosmic force and you do believe in science? Sorry, I must have been thinking of someone else.
.
You’re stuck on the fact that I assumed aluminium referred to an element and not a compound.
.
No. The fact you continued to refer to “aluminium” and “toxins” even after Maggie, myself et al had repeatedly mentioned things like table salt and essential nutrients and dosage, just confirmed the suspicions that you really have no idea what you’re talking about.
.
What initially gave you away was your tendency to just link and quote with very little personal input that suggested any understanding of the subject matter on your own part. You also have this strange (though common) tendency to appear to ask for information but then to assert your own conclusions regardless of any responses. So, if no one bothers to explain the biochemistry of intramuscular injection of aluminium salts to you, you conclude from this that it must be dangerous despite all the evidence that, regardless of the mechanisms, it isn’t. I can’t explain the chemistry or mechanics of an internal combustion engine but it doesn’t mean I avoid motorised vehicles.
.
If you are genuine, then you appear to want to be scared by anyone with websites magazines, books and DVDs to sell as long as they oppose vaccination or science in general. It’s a bit like wanting to be scared by ghosts, only more dangerous.
.
Feel free to clear up any bad assumptions I make. I’d hate to get the wrong idea about your continued crusade against reality.
