Truther, a term that came from the 9/11 Truth movement, but has become more than just an ironic and demeaning term for 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
A Truther can be someone believes in conspiracy theories other than the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
With this in mind I've taken a look at these people, and while I've noticed alot of traits about them, I've narrowed it down to about five different things.
So here are five things I've noticed about Truthers:
5. It's a broad and encompassing term.
For most people when they hear the word "Truther" they think of someone whom is apart of the 9/11 Truth movement, or just someone whom believes the myth that the US government, or Israel, or the Illuminati committed the 9/11 attacks. While this is true, "Truther" has become a more broad term and could include not just a member of the 9/11 Truth movement, but any conspiracy theory.
What a Truther really is is a type of conspiracy theorist that both claims they want to know the truth about a conspiracy theory, and then claims they already know what the truth is, but in reality it's anything but the truth.
Think of this type of person as someone whom asks you where the nearest large body of water is and you tell them that there is a pond 100 feet behind them, but they don't believe you and then tell you that nearest large body of water is two miles away, despite the fact that the pond is clearly behind them, and all they would have to do is turn around to see it. Even if they do turn around they'll just insist that it's not really a large body of water.
That's another thing about Truthers...
4. They keep "Moving the Goalposts".
For anyone who has had a "conversation" with a Truther type of conspiracy theorist you probably already know what I'm talking about, but for those who don't I'll explain.
Truthers, when confronted with evidence and/or logical arguments that contradicts or disproves their conspiracy theories, will often claim that what is being presented to them is not enough evidence to disprove what they are claiming isn't true, or that the evidence that you are presenting to them isn't true, and in either case they will claim to need more.
When a skeptic gets into an argument with a Truther and they start doing this a person like myself will usually determine that either the Truther is too dumb to realize what they are doing, or too deluded to realize what they are doing, or are in serious denial and are trying to hold on to what they believe or want to believe is real, but somewhere in their minds they know they're wrong.
Besides just "Moving the Goalposts" another tactic that Truthers like to use is...
3. They call everyone that disagrees with them a shill.
Truthers are under the assumption that they are right, and that everyone else who does not agree with is wrong. For those that continue to insist that the Truther is wrong then the Truther just seems to naturally assume the skeptic is either a sheep that has not "woken up" to "the truth" (their truth mind you) or someone who is being paid to say what they are saying.
Accusing someone of being a shill will often leave many skeptics to question whether or not a Truther seriously believes that a person is a shill, or if they're calling someone a shill as a way to avoid having to address the evidence and logic that a skeptic brings up.
Skeptics are not the only people get accused of being a shill. Truthers accuse each other of being shills, usually over a disagreement about who committed a "conspiracy", how they did it, and for what reason.
Most people would think that with two Truthers, despite their disagreement over how it was done, who did it, and for what ever reason a conspiracy took place, that they would show some unity, but they don't. Infact...
2. They're often aggressive with each other.
To a skeptic watching a Truther try to argue with another Truther can be the most hilarious thing to watch. Not only do these arguments show that their is no solidarity among Truthers of a certain conspiracy theory, but they also seem to try to one up each other in bogus and false claims, as well as sheer insanity.
Ofcourse this only happens with two Truthers that are near or equally aggressive. If one Truther is a newbie or just not as near aggressive as the Truther they get into an argument with, the aggressive Truther can be very domineering as well as very intimidating, and could cause some people to leave a Truther movement, or cause others to form their own Truther movement, or try to force that one aggressive Truther out (but this rarely happens).
The probable reasons why some Truthers are so aggressive towards other Truthers is that they are trying to weed out the weak (a sort of Truther hazing as some might see it) or they're trying to "identify" possible "shills", or they could just so seriously believe that their conspiracy theory is correct that they feel they must do what ever it takes to prevent the spreading of false information by others, including fellow Truthers.
Then there are just those that are naturally aggressive towards others and probably have some serious mental health issue.
Regardless of whether they are arguing with a fellow Truther or a skeptic a Truther will always do this one thing...
1. They will always bring up the same stuff that they think is evidence.
Regardless of whether or not a Truther will keep moving the goalpost on someone, or call them a shill, or just get really aggressive with another person, they will always use the same discredited arguments, and use the same debunked evidence that they believe is real evidence.
The arguments a Truther will make concerning any conspiracy theory are as predictable as phases of the Moon, and the reason I say that is like phases of the Moon they constantly repeat themselves over and over again.
Sometimes the arguments that they make are so common and in lock step that we skeptics know what a Truther is going to say before the Truther says it.
I guess that's the way of the Truther. Keep making the same debunked arguments over and over, while at the same time denying any real evidence.
Maybe we shouldn't call them Truthers. Maybe we should call them "Mythers"? Or liars.
Showing posts with label fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fraud. Show all posts
Friday, July 18, 2014
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
5 Things I've noticed about... Andrew Wakefield
In 1998 then Doctor Andrew Wakefield published a study in the medical journal The Lancet that claimed that the MMR vaccine causes autism, which was later found to be not true but still lead to a worldwide increase of measles cases, and in the end destroyed Wakefield's career.
There are many things that I've noticed about Andrew Wakefield (none of them good) and I've come up with about five different things.
So here are five things I've noticed about Andrew Wakefield:
5. He committed a terrible fraud.
I'm sure that everybody is aware that his aforementioned "study" was retracted in 2010 by The Lancet after a long investigation by the British Medical Journal and journalist Brian Deer. The investigation showed that not only had he manipulated the data in his study, it also found that he had patented his own measles vaccine a year before publishing his study, and that the study was funded by lawyers who sued vaccine manufactures.
To better understand how Wakefield manipulated the data in his study, please watch this video by Youtube science vlogger C0nc0rdance:
As awful as his fraud was it would not have been as bad as it became if it wasn't for the fact that so many people took his study seriously and decided not to vaccinate their children because of it. This has directly resulted in the world wide increases of measles and mumps infections and infections from other diseases as well because many people were not vaccinating themselves or their children due to fear of any vaccines, a fear that was brought on by Wakefield's study, which has also lead to numerous unnecessary deaths.
As for Wakefield himself his fraudulent study lead to his own career being ruined and his name being struck off the UK medical register, making it illegal for him to practice medicine in the United Kingdom.
4. He turned parents in paranoid liars.
One of the direct results of Andrew Wakefield's study is that many parents have become paranoid of vaccines and have chosen not to vaccinate their children despite being legally obligated to do so in many places before they enter them into school, and the fact that it's just good common sense to do so.
Inorder to keep their children in school while at the same time keep them un-vaccinated parents will often lie to health officials and school officials about either their religious or philosophical beliefs inorder to get a vaccine exemption for their child.
Other things that some parents will do inorder to fool health and school officials is that they will go to a fake doctor (ex. Naturopath, Homeopath) and get them to write up an exemption from getting vaccinate for their children, or write up they vaccinate the child when really they didn't.
These types of actions are dangerous not only to the children whose parents did not vaccinate them, but also to anyone that couldn't get vaccinated for a legitimate medical reason, or those who the vaccine didn't immunize them for some reason.
3. He's become the Lord Voldemort of science and medicine.
Much like Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter book series Andrew Wakefield's name is something you don't use in a discussion about science and medicine, unless he is used as an example for when bad or fraudulent research is taken to seriously by the public.
As for the scientific and medical communities any research done by him before his 1998 autism/MMR vaccine "study" is somewhat taboo, and is usually avoided in research unless necessary. Any research done by him after his 1998 autism/MMR vaccine "study" is to never be used, unless you never want to be taken seriously and risk your career.
Also, you don't compare a doctor or scientist to Andrew Wakefield as doing so would be considered a huge insult, unless their research was sloppy or fraudulent and caused peoples' deaths.
2. He created alot of waste.
While the dramatic increase in vaccine preventable infections has been the most obvious result of Wakefield's fraudulent study, another thing his study has done is wasted alot of money.
The amount of money wasted because of Wakefield's study is probably within the hundreds of millions of dollars, and possibly within the billions. These costs include health care and hospital stays for people (especially children) who got an infection from diseases that are vaccine preventable.
Other costs include lost wages for parents who had to stop working inorder to take care of their sick children, and wasted money (not to mention man hours) to disprove and try to undo the damage caused by Wakefield's "research", money that could have used for more legitimate and better research projects.
Then there are the costs of funerals that can go into the thousands per funeral, and with thousands having died because of his research, the costs really adds up, but is overshadowed by the amount of pain caused by those deaths, which is a cost that is immeasurable.
1. He refuses to accept responsibility for what he's done.
Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 autism/MMR vaccine "study" has been described as "the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years". So far he has never accepted any responsibility for the damage done by his "study", nor has he faded from the public light.
To this day he continues to claim that his study was accurate, and that he didn't commit fraud, and that there is a conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies and public health officials to discredit him, and that they were paying bloggers to so, and also inflate the reports of deaths from measles.
In 2012 Wakefield attempted to sue Brian Deer, the British Medical Journal and it's editor Fiona Godlee for defamation, which was described by many as being frivolous, and was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
To this day Wakefield continues to work in autism research and claim the title of "doctor", both of which are considered to be highly inappropriate for him to do, and that many have said he should stop doing. He currently lives and does all of this in the United States because legally he can not in the United Kingdom.
There are many things that I've noticed about Andrew Wakefield (none of them good) and I've come up with about five different things.
So here are five things I've noticed about Andrew Wakefield:
5. He committed a terrible fraud.
I'm sure that everybody is aware that his aforementioned "study" was retracted in 2010 by The Lancet after a long investigation by the British Medical Journal and journalist Brian Deer. The investigation showed that not only had he manipulated the data in his study, it also found that he had patented his own measles vaccine a year before publishing his study, and that the study was funded by lawyers who sued vaccine manufactures.
To better understand how Wakefield manipulated the data in his study, please watch this video by Youtube science vlogger C0nc0rdance:
As awful as his fraud was it would not have been as bad as it became if it wasn't for the fact that so many people took his study seriously and decided not to vaccinate their children because of it. This has directly resulted in the world wide increases of measles and mumps infections and infections from other diseases as well because many people were not vaccinating themselves or their children due to fear of any vaccines, a fear that was brought on by Wakefield's study, which has also lead to numerous unnecessary deaths.
As for Wakefield himself his fraudulent study lead to his own career being ruined and his name being struck off the UK medical register, making it illegal for him to practice medicine in the United Kingdom.
4. He turned parents in paranoid liars.
One of the direct results of Andrew Wakefield's study is that many parents have become paranoid of vaccines and have chosen not to vaccinate their children despite being legally obligated to do so in many places before they enter them into school, and the fact that it's just good common sense to do so.
Inorder to keep their children in school while at the same time keep them un-vaccinated parents will often lie to health officials and school officials about either their religious or philosophical beliefs inorder to get a vaccine exemption for their child.
Other things that some parents will do inorder to fool health and school officials is that they will go to a fake doctor (ex. Naturopath, Homeopath) and get them to write up an exemption from getting vaccinate for their children, or write up they vaccinate the child when really they didn't.
These types of actions are dangerous not only to the children whose parents did not vaccinate them, but also to anyone that couldn't get vaccinated for a legitimate medical reason, or those who the vaccine didn't immunize them for some reason.
3. He's become the Lord Voldemort of science and medicine.
Much like Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter book series Andrew Wakefield's name is something you don't use in a discussion about science and medicine, unless he is used as an example for when bad or fraudulent research is taken to seriously by the public.
As for the scientific and medical communities any research done by him before his 1998 autism/MMR vaccine "study" is somewhat taboo, and is usually avoided in research unless necessary. Any research done by him after his 1998 autism/MMR vaccine "study" is to never be used, unless you never want to be taken seriously and risk your career.
Also, you don't compare a doctor or scientist to Andrew Wakefield as doing so would be considered a huge insult, unless their research was sloppy or fraudulent and caused peoples' deaths.
2. He created alot of waste.
While the dramatic increase in vaccine preventable infections has been the most obvious result of Wakefield's fraudulent study, another thing his study has done is wasted alot of money.
The amount of money wasted because of Wakefield's study is probably within the hundreds of millions of dollars, and possibly within the billions. These costs include health care and hospital stays for people (especially children) who got an infection from diseases that are vaccine preventable.
Other costs include lost wages for parents who had to stop working inorder to take care of their sick children, and wasted money (not to mention man hours) to disprove and try to undo the damage caused by Wakefield's "research", money that could have used for more legitimate and better research projects.
Then there are the costs of funerals that can go into the thousands per funeral, and with thousands having died because of his research, the costs really adds up, but is overshadowed by the amount of pain caused by those deaths, which is a cost that is immeasurable.
1. He refuses to accept responsibility for what he's done.
Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 autism/MMR vaccine "study" has been described as "the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years". So far he has never accepted any responsibility for the damage done by his "study", nor has he faded from the public light.
To this day he continues to claim that his study was accurate, and that he didn't commit fraud, and that there is a conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies and public health officials to discredit him, and that they were paying bloggers to so, and also inflate the reports of deaths from measles.
In 2012 Wakefield attempted to sue Brian Deer, the British Medical Journal and it's editor Fiona Godlee for defamation, which was described by many as being frivolous, and was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
To this day Wakefield continues to work in autism research and claim the title of "doctor", both of which are considered to be highly inappropriate for him to do, and that many have said he should stop doing. He currently lives and does all of this in the United States because legally he can not in the United Kingdom.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Facebook needs to start enforcing it's own rules!
Yesterday I saw something on Facebook that really p*ssed me off!
Granted I see lots of things on Facebook that p*ss me off (sometimes on an hourly bases) but the things that usually get my teeth grinding are just rude, or offensive, or ignorant, or all of the above. What I saw wasn't neither rude nor offensive, but it sure was ignorant, and it was definitely dangerous.
What ticked me off was an infograph posted on Green Med Info's Facebook page concerning a "study" about "GMO" insulin (which all insulin is) that claimed that certain people with type 2 diabetes can develop type 1 diabetes from injecting insulin. (Link to original post here)
While people with type 2 diabetes can develop type 1 diabetes over time there are usually several factors that can cause this, such as a person's diet, or whether they exercise, or if they take the medication that has been prescribed to them, or genetics. Insulin is not one of the causes. Infact it could prevent a person with type 2 diabetes from developing type 1 diabetes.
What gets me so angry about that post isn't just the sheer ignorance of it, or how outright dangerous it is for the people at Green Med Info to promote something like this (because despite the fact that it promotes quackery and fraud medicine, better known as alternative medicine, people do listen to and take "advice" from that page) this type of "info" could kill a person with type 2 diabetes if they take it to seriously and decide to stop taking insulin. Either that or result in a person developing type 1 diabetes, or slipping into a diabetic coma, or losing a body part. The very worst thing that could happen is that the parent of a child with type 2 diabetes reads that and decides not to give their child insulin and what I listed above happens to that child, and there is little they can do about because they are at the mercy of their parent (unless they tell a teacher or family member about what their parent is doing and that person gets the authorities involved).
Now, back to the original reason why I'm writing this.
I, along with many other people reported this post to Facebook hoping that the social media website would take down the post due to the fact that it could cause some people to do something that was dangerous and hazardous to their health, and warn Green Med Info not to post something like that again.
Facebook has done nothing.
As many of you have probably found out over time this isn't the only time that Facebook has failed to remove a post or a page that promotes stuff that's either dangerous and/or violates it's own rules.
There are lots of pages on Facebook that promote a great amount of medical misinformation that in the hands of an uninformed person could cause that person to do something that results in their death or the death of others. The biggest violators of this would be anti-vaccination pages and HIV denialism pages, two types of groups that promote medical misinformation that has led to multiple deaths. Such pages should not be allowed because the "information" they a spreading is harmful.
Then there are the pages that promote bigotry, which antisemitism seems to be the the one mostly promoted.
While the spreading of medical misinformation may be dangerous and for some people questionable whether or not it violates the rules, promoting bigotry in what ever form it may come in clearly violates the rules.
Now sometimes Facebook will do the right thing and remove a bigoted post or page, but more often than not it just doesn't happen and the person or people running the page continues to spew hate speech.
Facebook needs to better enforce it's own rules and take down posts and pages that violate it's own rules and promotes things that are dangerous.
I'm aware that the main reason why the people at Facebook do not often take down these pages is because of free speech concerns, and while I do understand that reasoning the fact remains is that Facebook has a set of guidelines and rules that everyone is suppose to obey, and when they don't enforce those guidelines and rules they become meaningless.
I know that Facebook is a private company and can remove any content it so chooses to. I just wish it would start doing so.
Granted I see lots of things on Facebook that p*ss me off (sometimes on an hourly bases) but the things that usually get my teeth grinding are just rude, or offensive, or ignorant, or all of the above. What I saw wasn't neither rude nor offensive, but it sure was ignorant, and it was definitely dangerous.
What ticked me off was an infograph posted on Green Med Info's Facebook page concerning a "study" about "GMO" insulin (which all insulin is) that claimed that certain people with type 2 diabetes can develop type 1 diabetes from injecting insulin. (Link to original post here)
What gets me so angry about that post isn't just the sheer ignorance of it, or how outright dangerous it is for the people at Green Med Info to promote something like this (because despite the fact that it promotes quackery and fraud medicine, better known as alternative medicine, people do listen to and take "advice" from that page) this type of "info" could kill a person with type 2 diabetes if they take it to seriously and decide to stop taking insulin. Either that or result in a person developing type 1 diabetes, or slipping into a diabetic coma, or losing a body part. The very worst thing that could happen is that the parent of a child with type 2 diabetes reads that and decides not to give their child insulin and what I listed above happens to that child, and there is little they can do about because they are at the mercy of their parent (unless they tell a teacher or family member about what their parent is doing and that person gets the authorities involved).
Now, back to the original reason why I'm writing this.
I, along with many other people reported this post to Facebook hoping that the social media website would take down the post due to the fact that it could cause some people to do something that was dangerous and hazardous to their health, and warn Green Med Info not to post something like that again.
Facebook has done nothing.
As many of you have probably found out over time this isn't the only time that Facebook has failed to remove a post or a page that promotes stuff that's either dangerous and/or violates it's own rules.
There are lots of pages on Facebook that promote a great amount of medical misinformation that in the hands of an uninformed person could cause that person to do something that results in their death or the death of others. The biggest violators of this would be anti-vaccination pages and HIV denialism pages, two types of groups that promote medical misinformation that has led to multiple deaths. Such pages should not be allowed because the "information" they a spreading is harmful.
Then there are the pages that promote bigotry, which antisemitism seems to be the the one mostly promoted.
While the spreading of medical misinformation may be dangerous and for some people questionable whether or not it violates the rules, promoting bigotry in what ever form it may come in clearly violates the rules.
Now sometimes Facebook will do the right thing and remove a bigoted post or page, but more often than not it just doesn't happen and the person or people running the page continues to spew hate speech.
Facebook needs to better enforce it's own rules and take down posts and pages that violate it's own rules and promotes things that are dangerous.
I'm aware that the main reason why the people at Facebook do not often take down these pages is because of free speech concerns, and while I do understand that reasoning the fact remains is that Facebook has a set of guidelines and rules that everyone is suppose to obey, and when they don't enforce those guidelines and rules they become meaningless.
I know that Facebook is a private company and can remove any content it so chooses to. I just wish it would start doing so.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
17 years on Mars, or "How Daily Mirror fell for a fake story."
Recently the British tabloid Daily Mirror published an article online about this claim made by a alleged former US Marine (a claim that sounds more like a half decent science fiction novel rather than a true account) about how he allegedly spent 17 years on Mars...
The original story was published on a website called ExoNews TV (a UFO conspiracy theorist website) on April 3 of this year. Why the Daily Mail took so long to write up their own crazy story nearly three months after the original crazy story was published, who knows?
Maybe they just found out about it, maybe they were having a slow "news" day (ofcourse the Daily Mirror is not really known for publishing actual news or news that's truthful) maybe they thought that now was the time to publish it.
The original story from ExoNews TV is an account told by a person whom calls himself "Captain Kaye" or "Captain K" (you can listen to him recalling his story here) and whom claims to be a former Marine that spent 17 years of a 20 year military career on Mars.
Now such claims have been made before. Infact several people have claimed to have gone to Mars and back over the years, or claimed to have "knowledge" of bases on Mars. The problem with all of those claims are that the people who made them are either liars, seriously deluded, or both.
I believe this "Captain Kaye" is the first type, and for several reasons.
First he claims that our government has technology that is probably centuries ahead of our current technological level, and yet he gives an audio interview (he never shows his face) to a conspiracy theorist website.
Why the heck would he give an audio only interview and give a fake name and not have a video interview and a give out his real name, since giving a fake name and an audio interview would be useless in hiding himself from his former employers?
If the people whom he worked for are technologically advanced enough to get to Mars and set up a colony, in secret, then wouldn't they be advanced enough to have computer program that can analyze your voice and figure out who you are?
Heck, we have that technology now, so what would be the reason for this Captain Kaye person to hide whom he is?
He also claims to be a genius, yet he's not smart enough to even consider the fact that the people he worked for have the technology to find out who he is and that hiding whom he is would be pointless, and might even put himself in greater danger?
The only reason why I would think he would hide his identity is because he doesn't want people to find out whom he is, step forward and say "this guy is full of sh*t, and he's been on Earth the entire time".
The other reason why I believe this Captain Kaye person is lying is that he sounds like he's reading from an outlined script in his interview and that he's improvising from that script and trying to think up things to say rather than talking about things that he actually did. There's even a few times it sounds like he's shuffling some papers around.
Also, he offers no other evidence of his "experiences" or than his word, which we have no way of checking whether or not his word is good or not, or even if he was in the Marines, or any branch of the military.
The story is clearly fake, and I know the Daily Mirror doesn't have that much standards, but this is ridiculous even for them.
Whats next? Are they going to hire David Icke as a columnist?
The original story was published on a website called ExoNews TV (a UFO conspiracy theorist website) on April 3 of this year. Why the Daily Mail took so long to write up their own crazy story nearly three months after the original crazy story was published, who knows?
Maybe they just found out about it, maybe they were having a slow "news" day (ofcourse the Daily Mirror is not really known for publishing actual news or news that's truthful) maybe they thought that now was the time to publish it.
The original story from ExoNews TV is an account told by a person whom calls himself "Captain Kaye" or "Captain K" (you can listen to him recalling his story here) and whom claims to be a former Marine that spent 17 years of a 20 year military career on Mars.
Now such claims have been made before. Infact several people have claimed to have gone to Mars and back over the years, or claimed to have "knowledge" of bases on Mars. The problem with all of those claims are that the people who made them are either liars, seriously deluded, or both.
I believe this "Captain Kaye" is the first type, and for several reasons.
First he claims that our government has technology that is probably centuries ahead of our current technological level, and yet he gives an audio interview (he never shows his face) to a conspiracy theorist website.
Why the heck would he give an audio only interview and give a fake name and not have a video interview and a give out his real name, since giving a fake name and an audio interview would be useless in hiding himself from his former employers?
If the people whom he worked for are technologically advanced enough to get to Mars and set up a colony, in secret, then wouldn't they be advanced enough to have computer program that can analyze your voice and figure out who you are?
Heck, we have that technology now, so what would be the reason for this Captain Kaye person to hide whom he is?
He also claims to be a genius, yet he's not smart enough to even consider the fact that the people he worked for have the technology to find out who he is and that hiding whom he is would be pointless, and might even put himself in greater danger?
The only reason why I would think he would hide his identity is because he doesn't want people to find out whom he is, step forward and say "this guy is full of sh*t, and he's been on Earth the entire time".
The other reason why I believe this Captain Kaye person is lying is that he sounds like he's reading from an outlined script in his interview and that he's improvising from that script and trying to think up things to say rather than talking about things that he actually did. There's even a few times it sounds like he's shuffling some papers around.
Also, he offers no other evidence of his "experiences" or than his word, which we have no way of checking whether or not his word is good or not, or even if he was in the Marines, or any branch of the military.
The story is clearly fake, and I know the Daily Mirror doesn't have that much standards, but this is ridiculous even for them.
Whats next? Are they going to hire David Icke as a columnist?
Friday, June 6, 2014
10 Lies Anti-vaccers tell
The anti-vaccination has caused alot of harm over the years with their fear mongering and lies. These lies have caused parents to become to afraid to vaccinate their children, and themselves as well, despite the danger in not doing so.
The following is a list of ten lies the anti-vaccination movement has told, and why they are just bogus:
10. Studies indicate that vaccines cause autism.
While there are "studies" that claim that vaccines cause autism, only one of these so called studies have been published in a well respected, peer reviewed scientific and medical journal. That study, the Wakefield study (which was published in The Lancet in 1998) was retracted in 2010 after it had been discovered that the main author of the study, Andrew Wakefield, had committed fraud. On top of that the findings in the study itself had been long since discredited and disproved before the formal retraction.
The studies that followed since the Wakefield study that claim that vaccines cause autism have never been published in any credible medical or scientific journals. The only places that these studies have ever been published are either in non-credible pay-for-publish journals, or websites that promote alternative medicine and/or conspiracy theories.
9. Signs of autism show up in children only after they have been vaccinated.
As the old skeptics' saying goes "correlation does not equal causation".
Just because a child starts to show obvious signs of autism after they have had their vaccinations, it's far more likely that they were showing signs of autism before they received their vaccinations and that no one noticed simply because the child was to young to show any noticable signs of autism to anyone but trained professionals.
8. Adverse reactions to vaccines are common, often severe, and can cause death.
Actually only about one out of every 300 people will have adverse reactions to vaccines. Most of the time these adverse reaction are mirror, short lived, and are more annoying than debilitating.
Occasionally a person will have a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine, some of which can be fatal, but these types of adverse reactions are very rare, only about one to two out of every million people. You have better odds dying in a car wreck to get a vaccination than you from the vaccination.
7. Vaccines have never been shown to be effective against reducing the spread of disease, and has even been shown to increase the spread.
I'm sure smallpox and polio would disagree. Actually alot of diseases would disagree because it's been proven time and time again that anytime vaccines were in wide spread use the rate of infections of a disease that the vaccines are meant to protect against will go down dramatically, sometimes even eliminating a disease in an area.
6. Natural immunity is superior to immunity via vaccination.
If you try to get natural immunity from a disease (i.e. getting infected and sick from said disease) there is a pretty good possibility that the disease that you hope to make yourself or your child immune from will actually kill you or your child, or atleast cause a permanent disability. Also in many cases it takes several weeks for this form of immunity to happen, during which time you will be sick as heck.
On the other hand immunity via vaccination is much faster, doesn't leave you sick, and is far, FAR less likely to kill you than getting immunity from a disease by getting infected by that disease.
5. Vaccines contain aborted fetuses.
This is completely false and is a distortion of the fact that the weakened forms of some viruses in vaccines are grown in a culture of cell lines derived from fetal tissue of fetuses aborted in the 1960's.
There are no fetal cells at all in vaccines.
4. Vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome.
No, rapidly shaking a baby back and forth and causing their head to flop around causes shaken baby syndrome.
This isn't even just a bold faced lie, this is child abuse apology.
3. Vaccines contain high amounts of toxic ingredients.
While vaccines do contain chemicals that in high enough amounts are toxic to humans, the amounts of these toxins in vaccines are so low that it wouldn't hurt anyone even if they took that chemicals by itself.
As the old saying goes "the dose makes the poison" and no vaccine contains enough of a certain chemical to make it poisonous.
2. Vaccines cause SIDS.
While DPT/DPaT vaccines have been suspected of being one of the causes of SIDS in the past, current studies into SIDS point to that abnormalities in the development and function of medullary serotonin may be the more likely cause of SIDS, and that vaccines do not cause SIDS at all.
1. Most diseases meant to be prevented by vaccines are rare and mostly harmless, and thus there is no reason to vaccinate.
Most diseases prevented by vaccines use to be rare, but a few diseases such as measles and mumps are making a comeback due to people not getting their children the MMR vaccine. Outbreaks of more common diseases such as the flu and whooping cough are made worse if large groups of people do not get vaccinated.
Also, while many people can get over these diseases they are far from harmless and can kill, especially if the person is very old, or very young, or has something wrong with their immune system and they are unable to fight off the disease.
Even if a disease is rare there is still no reason not to vaccinate against it, as vaccinating will help guarantee that disease remains rare, and may even wipe out that disease.
The following is a list of ten lies the anti-vaccination movement has told, and why they are just bogus:
10. Studies indicate that vaccines cause autism.
While there are "studies" that claim that vaccines cause autism, only one of these so called studies have been published in a well respected, peer reviewed scientific and medical journal. That study, the Wakefield study (which was published in The Lancet in 1998) was retracted in 2010 after it had been discovered that the main author of the study, Andrew Wakefield, had committed fraud. On top of that the findings in the study itself had been long since discredited and disproved before the formal retraction.
The studies that followed since the Wakefield study that claim that vaccines cause autism have never been published in any credible medical or scientific journals. The only places that these studies have ever been published are either in non-credible pay-for-publish journals, or websites that promote alternative medicine and/or conspiracy theories.
9. Signs of autism show up in children only after they have been vaccinated.
As the old skeptics' saying goes "correlation does not equal causation".
Just because a child starts to show obvious signs of autism after they have had their vaccinations, it's far more likely that they were showing signs of autism before they received their vaccinations and that no one noticed simply because the child was to young to show any noticable signs of autism to anyone but trained professionals.
8. Adverse reactions to vaccines are common, often severe, and can cause death.
Actually only about one out of every 300 people will have adverse reactions to vaccines. Most of the time these adverse reaction are mirror, short lived, and are more annoying than debilitating.
Occasionally a person will have a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine, some of which can be fatal, but these types of adverse reactions are very rare, only about one to two out of every million people. You have better odds dying in a car wreck to get a vaccination than you from the vaccination.
7. Vaccines have never been shown to be effective against reducing the spread of disease, and has even been shown to increase the spread.
I'm sure smallpox and polio would disagree. Actually alot of diseases would disagree because it's been proven time and time again that anytime vaccines were in wide spread use the rate of infections of a disease that the vaccines are meant to protect against will go down dramatically, sometimes even eliminating a disease in an area.
6. Natural immunity is superior to immunity via vaccination.
If you try to get natural immunity from a disease (i.e. getting infected and sick from said disease) there is a pretty good possibility that the disease that you hope to make yourself or your child immune from will actually kill you or your child, or atleast cause a permanent disability. Also in many cases it takes several weeks for this form of immunity to happen, during which time you will be sick as heck.
On the other hand immunity via vaccination is much faster, doesn't leave you sick, and is far, FAR less likely to kill you than getting immunity from a disease by getting infected by that disease.
5. Vaccines contain aborted fetuses.
This is completely false and is a distortion of the fact that the weakened forms of some viruses in vaccines are grown in a culture of cell lines derived from fetal tissue of fetuses aborted in the 1960's.
There are no fetal cells at all in vaccines.
4. Vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome.
No, rapidly shaking a baby back and forth and causing their head to flop around causes shaken baby syndrome.
This isn't even just a bold faced lie, this is child abuse apology.
3. Vaccines contain high amounts of toxic ingredients.
While vaccines do contain chemicals that in high enough amounts are toxic to humans, the amounts of these toxins in vaccines are so low that it wouldn't hurt anyone even if they took that chemicals by itself.
As the old saying goes "the dose makes the poison" and no vaccine contains enough of a certain chemical to make it poisonous.
2. Vaccines cause SIDS.
While DPT/DPaT vaccines have been suspected of being one of the causes of SIDS in the past, current studies into SIDS point to that abnormalities in the development and function of medullary serotonin may be the more likely cause of SIDS, and that vaccines do not cause SIDS at all.
1. Most diseases meant to be prevented by vaccines are rare and mostly harmless, and thus there is no reason to vaccinate.
Most diseases prevented by vaccines use to be rare, but a few diseases such as measles and mumps are making a comeback due to people not getting their children the MMR vaccine. Outbreaks of more common diseases such as the flu and whooping cough are made worse if large groups of people do not get vaccinated.
Also, while many people can get over these diseases they are far from harmless and can kill, especially if the person is very old, or very young, or has something wrong with their immune system and they are unable to fight off the disease.
Even if a disease is rare there is still no reason not to vaccinate against it, as vaccinating will help guarantee that disease remains rare, and may even wipe out that disease.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
5 Things I've noticed about... Autism cure promoters
Autism cure promoters are people who claim they "cure" people with autism.
The claims made by these people are very conversational, both in their claims about autism and it's causes, and what they say can cure autism.
Now there are a lot of different things I have noticed about autism cure promoters, but I've narrowed it down to five different things.
So here are five things I've noticed about autism cure promoters:
5. They're closely aligned with the anti-vaccination movement.
Autism cure promoters and the anti-vaccination movement are pretty much like peas in a pod. Anti-vaccers often promote these so called "therapies" that the autism cure promoters claim can cure a person with autism, and autism cure promoters also tend to publish on their websites anti-vaccination movement propaganda, mainly in the form of claims that certain chemicals in vaccines can cause autism.
Some of these promoters also like to use certain words that the anti-vaccination movement also uses inorder to sell their therapies to people with autism or have autistic children, such as "vaccine damage", "vaccine injury", or "autism epidemic".
They also ignore the fact that such words are not only incorrect and misleadinf, but very insulting to people with autism. Ofcourse they're not actually promoting their therapies towards people with autism, they're really promoting them towards parents of children who have autism and just want their kids to be normal.
4. They exploit the fears and desires of parents with autistic children.
For some parents when a child is diagnosed with autism it can be devastating to them, and the fact that there is no way to cure autism can make that devastation to them even worse. Then comes along someone who claims they can do things that the medical industry cannot do and can "cure" their child of autism, and if they don't know any better they may take that person up on their offer.
A person who is misinformed about what autism is and what causes autism, mixed with both the fear of what will happen to their child and how their life will turn out due to their autism, combined with their desire to have a "normal" child, would be very temped by someone whom claims they can cure their child of autism and give them a chance at a normal life and be willing to pay whatever price they can inorder to do so.
The people who are promoting these so called autism cures know this and know that they can exploit these fears and desires to sell people products and services that scientific research has concluded are useless at curing autism.
4. They're trying to give a simple solution to a complex issue.
Autism is a neurological disorder, and like all neurological disorders it's complex without any simple solutions.
Autism cure promoters try to make it look like autism is caused by toxins in the body, and that by removing these toxins a person whom has autism one can be cured of autism.
While some toxins can cause neurological disorders, all legitimate scientific research has shown that autism isn't one them.
While the actually cause of autism is still technically unknown, most scientists who study autism agree that it's most likely caused by genetics.
The therapies these autism cure promoters promote are just a bunch of quick fixes for something that can't be fixed quickly or entirely. There are legitimate therapies out there to give autistic people the tools they need inorder to thrive in society, but they don't cure people of autism, which is not something that many people can accept. This fact is exploited by autism cure promoters that claim that they can cure autism, but in reality they can't.
2. They promote therapies that are dangerous and abusive.
Not only are autism cure promoters promoting therapies that don't work (atleast for curing autism), the therapies they are promoting are considered to be dangerous if used improperly, or even used at all.
Chelation therapy for example, which is a legitimate medical treatment for treating people with toxic metal poisoning, is often used by autism cure promoters as a way to cure autism. Infact it has never been proven to cure any person of autism, and if done improperly could harm a person, and even kill them.
Miracle Mineral Supplement, another product that is said to cure autism (along with many other things) contains 28% sodium chlorite, a toxic industrial chemical, and can cause a person to become very ill, and possibly kill them. MMS is very dangerous and should never be used for anything and is approved by no one.
These are just two of the many useless so called "cures" for autism, but there are many other kinds out there that are not only useless, but also dangerous, and forcing any child to use one of this therapies, autistic or not, is viewed by many people to be child abuse, and could be legally considered child abuse too.
1. They try to make autism look like something that it is not.
Autism cure promoters try to make it look like people with autism are "damaged" and that autism itself is bad and that a diagnose of autism is the end of the world, and thus your child must be cured of autism no matter what.
Autism is not bad, nor is a diagnose of it the end of the world, and autistic people are not damaged, they just think differently than everyone else.
Most autistic people are considered high functioning, and can live relatively normal lives. Some are so high functioning that you couldn't even tell that they were autistic unless they told you.
Autism is not a problem. The real problem is with people who claim that autistic people are "damaged" and they can cure autism.
They are the ones who make autism look worse than what it is, all so they can exploit parents who just want their children to be perfect, when they can't see that their children are perfect just the way they are.
The claims made by these people are very conversational, both in their claims about autism and it's causes, and what they say can cure autism.
Now there are a lot of different things I have noticed about autism cure promoters, but I've narrowed it down to five different things.
So here are five things I've noticed about autism cure promoters:
5. They're closely aligned with the anti-vaccination movement.
Autism cure promoters and the anti-vaccination movement are pretty much like peas in a pod. Anti-vaccers often promote these so called "therapies" that the autism cure promoters claim can cure a person with autism, and autism cure promoters also tend to publish on their websites anti-vaccination movement propaganda, mainly in the form of claims that certain chemicals in vaccines can cause autism.
Some of these promoters also like to use certain words that the anti-vaccination movement also uses inorder to sell their therapies to people with autism or have autistic children, such as "vaccine damage", "vaccine injury", or "autism epidemic".
They also ignore the fact that such words are not only incorrect and misleadinf, but very insulting to people with autism. Ofcourse they're not actually promoting their therapies towards people with autism, they're really promoting them towards parents of children who have autism and just want their kids to be normal.
4. They exploit the fears and desires of parents with autistic children.
For some parents when a child is diagnosed with autism it can be devastating to them, and the fact that there is no way to cure autism can make that devastation to them even worse. Then comes along someone who claims they can do things that the medical industry cannot do and can "cure" their child of autism, and if they don't know any better they may take that person up on their offer.
A person who is misinformed about what autism is and what causes autism, mixed with both the fear of what will happen to their child and how their life will turn out due to their autism, combined with their desire to have a "normal" child, would be very temped by someone whom claims they can cure their child of autism and give them a chance at a normal life and be willing to pay whatever price they can inorder to do so.
The people who are promoting these so called autism cures know this and know that they can exploit these fears and desires to sell people products and services that scientific research has concluded are useless at curing autism.
4. They're trying to give a simple solution to a complex issue.
Autism is a neurological disorder, and like all neurological disorders it's complex without any simple solutions.
Autism cure promoters try to make it look like autism is caused by toxins in the body, and that by removing these toxins a person whom has autism one can be cured of autism.
While some toxins can cause neurological disorders, all legitimate scientific research has shown that autism isn't one them.
While the actually cause of autism is still technically unknown, most scientists who study autism agree that it's most likely caused by genetics.
The therapies these autism cure promoters promote are just a bunch of quick fixes for something that can't be fixed quickly or entirely. There are legitimate therapies out there to give autistic people the tools they need inorder to thrive in society, but they don't cure people of autism, which is not something that many people can accept. This fact is exploited by autism cure promoters that claim that they can cure autism, but in reality they can't.
2. They promote therapies that are dangerous and abusive.
Not only are autism cure promoters promoting therapies that don't work (atleast for curing autism), the therapies they are promoting are considered to be dangerous if used improperly, or even used at all.
Chelation therapy for example, which is a legitimate medical treatment for treating people with toxic metal poisoning, is often used by autism cure promoters as a way to cure autism. Infact it has never been proven to cure any person of autism, and if done improperly could harm a person, and even kill them.
Miracle Mineral Supplement, another product that is said to cure autism (along with many other things) contains 28% sodium chlorite, a toxic industrial chemical, and can cause a person to become very ill, and possibly kill them. MMS is very dangerous and should never be used for anything and is approved by no one.
These are just two of the many useless so called "cures" for autism, but there are many other kinds out there that are not only useless, but also dangerous, and forcing any child to use one of this therapies, autistic or not, is viewed by many people to be child abuse, and could be legally considered child abuse too.
1. They try to make autism look like something that it is not.
Autism cure promoters try to make it look like people with autism are "damaged" and that autism itself is bad and that a diagnose of autism is the end of the world, and thus your child must be cured of autism no matter what.
Autism is not bad, nor is a diagnose of it the end of the world, and autistic people are not damaged, they just think differently than everyone else.
Most autistic people are considered high functioning, and can live relatively normal lives. Some are so high functioning that you couldn't even tell that they were autistic unless they told you.
Autism is not a problem. The real problem is with people who claim that autistic people are "damaged" and they can cure autism.
They are the ones who make autism look worse than what it is, all so they can exploit parents who just want their children to be perfect, when they can't see that their children are perfect just the way they are.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
5 Things I've noticed about... Breatharianism
Breatharianism is a New Age Movement belief that asserts that people don't need food inorder to live, and only need clean air and sun light.
Now there are a lot of things I have noticed about this belief (mainly the body count) but I have narrowed it down to five main things.
So here are five things I've noticed about Breatharianism:
5. It's a typical New Age Movement belief.
Breatharianism is a belief that is apart of, or atleast viewed to be apart of the New Age Movement, and like most beliefs in the New Age Movement it's mess-mass of several different beliefs all rolled into one.
Practitioners of Breatharianism believe it is possible to live off of prana (which is according to Hindu beliefs is a vital life force energy) and that the best source of this prana is from light and air, and with enough skill and knowledge they can somehow manipulate this prana to the point where they can live off of it forever and never need any food or water.
Another part about Breatharianism is the attainment of spiritual enlightenment, which apparently involves not eating. This sounds an awful lot like fasting, which is something that Abrahamic religions tend to do.
Basically Breatharianism is a combination of certain beliefs from Eastern and Western religions.
Also, like with many other New Age beliefs...
4. It's Pseudoscience.
While Breatharianism is primarily based from Eastern and Western religious beliefs, everything about it is pseudoscience.
Like all pseudosciences it's based off of a tiny scientific fact, and that fact is that we do need air and light inorder to live (well, not so much light, but we do need air) and that there is energy all around us... it's just not prana. This energy is either in the form photonic energy from light sources, or radio waves, or electromagnetic fields from electrical sources, or kinetic energy from air movement and the movement of the Earth.
Yes, there are many forms of energy that surrounds us. Prana is not one of them, and even if it was, it's very probable that we couldn't manipulate it with our minds.
The main claim about Breatharianism, as I stated before (and the one that doctors and scientists and people with common sense have a problem with) is that humans can live off of this prana and don't need to ever eat or drink again, which is impossible.
I suppose with these beliefs it seems that...
3. They make it sound like humans are actually plants.
Now I'm sure that no person alive that claims to practice Breatharianism will actually say that humans are pretty much like plants, but it does sound an awful lot like that's what they're trying to get at with their insistence that people only need air and sun light to live, which is something that plants need inorder to live.
While we do need air inorder to live, we don't actually need sun light inorder to live (although it is better for us in the long run to get some sun light). We do infact need water and nutrition (in the form of food) inorder to live, just like every other lifeform on this on this planet.
So many of you are probably wondering by now how exactly can these Breatharians live without water and food, if it is impossible for them to live without water and food? Well there's actually a couple of explanations for that, the first one being...
2. Those that try to go all the way tend to die.
With a belief that encourages people to do things that can kill them, such as not eating or drinking anything, eventually some people who try doing what the belief says you're suppose to do will end up dying. Breatharianism is no different.
Lots of people have tried Breatharianism, most of which give up in the end and start eating and drinking after they realize that they just can't do it, and this is either because the pains of hunger and thirst is getting to much for them, or they realize that what they are doing to themselves is killing them.
Unfortunately there are a few people who have tried to go all the way with living off of sun light and air and choose to ignore what their own body is trying to tell them. Unless someone intervenes and forces them to stop, what ultimately ends up happening is that they die.
Now some of you are probably wondering if Breatharianism is impossible, and that it will kill you if you really try to do it, then how come there are people out there that claim they can do it?
There's a very simple explanation for that. It's because...
1. Those who claim to be able to do it are lying.
Those that claim to practice Breatharianism and do it successfully have either been shown to be frauds, or are greatly suspected of lying, and have people help them cover up the fact that they eat and drink just like the rest of us.
Wiley Brooks, probably one of the most famous Breatharians there is, has been caught numerous times eating and drinking stuff. He also admits that he "occasionally" eats a Double Quarter-Pounder with Cheese from McDonalds, and drinks a Diet Coke, although he claims this to add balance to one's self...
Jasmuheen, another famous Breatharian, actually agreed to take a challenge by the Australian television program 60 Minutes to test her claims that she can live off of air and light alone by allowing the television show to supervise her and make sure she didn't eat or drink anything. The test was stopped after those who were observing her realized that her health was declining and that if they didn't stop the experiment, she would die.
The fact remains is that no one can survive without food and water. Those who claim you can and that they can do it are either lying or deluded.
Now there are a lot of things I have noticed about this belief (mainly the body count) but I have narrowed it down to five main things.
So here are five things I've noticed about Breatharianism:
5. It's a typical New Age Movement belief.
Breatharianism is a belief that is apart of, or atleast viewed to be apart of the New Age Movement, and like most beliefs in the New Age Movement it's mess-mass of several different beliefs all rolled into one.
Practitioners of Breatharianism believe it is possible to live off of prana (which is according to Hindu beliefs is a vital life force energy) and that the best source of this prana is from light and air, and with enough skill and knowledge they can somehow manipulate this prana to the point where they can live off of it forever and never need any food or water.
Another part about Breatharianism is the attainment of spiritual enlightenment, which apparently involves not eating. This sounds an awful lot like fasting, which is something that Abrahamic religions tend to do.
Basically Breatharianism is a combination of certain beliefs from Eastern and Western religions.
Also, like with many other New Age beliefs...
4. It's Pseudoscience.
While Breatharianism is primarily based from Eastern and Western religious beliefs, everything about it is pseudoscience.
Like all pseudosciences it's based off of a tiny scientific fact, and that fact is that we do need air and light inorder to live (well, not so much light, but we do need air) and that there is energy all around us... it's just not prana. This energy is either in the form photonic energy from light sources, or radio waves, or electromagnetic fields from electrical sources, or kinetic energy from air movement and the movement of the Earth.
Yes, there are many forms of energy that surrounds us. Prana is not one of them, and even if it was, it's very probable that we couldn't manipulate it with our minds.
The main claim about Breatharianism, as I stated before (and the one that doctors and scientists and people with common sense have a problem with) is that humans can live off of this prana and don't need to ever eat or drink again, which is impossible.
I suppose with these beliefs it seems that...
3. They make it sound like humans are actually plants.
Now I'm sure that no person alive that claims to practice Breatharianism will actually say that humans are pretty much like plants, but it does sound an awful lot like that's what they're trying to get at with their insistence that people only need air and sun light to live, which is something that plants need inorder to live.
While we do need air inorder to live, we don't actually need sun light inorder to live (although it is better for us in the long run to get some sun light). We do infact need water and nutrition (in the form of food) inorder to live, just like every other lifeform on this on this planet.
So many of you are probably wondering by now how exactly can these Breatharians live without water and food, if it is impossible for them to live without water and food? Well there's actually a couple of explanations for that, the first one being...
2. Those that try to go all the way tend to die.
With a belief that encourages people to do things that can kill them, such as not eating or drinking anything, eventually some people who try doing what the belief says you're suppose to do will end up dying. Breatharianism is no different.
Lots of people have tried Breatharianism, most of which give up in the end and start eating and drinking after they realize that they just can't do it, and this is either because the pains of hunger and thirst is getting to much for them, or they realize that what they are doing to themselves is killing them.
Unfortunately there are a few people who have tried to go all the way with living off of sun light and air and choose to ignore what their own body is trying to tell them. Unless someone intervenes and forces them to stop, what ultimately ends up happening is that they die.
Now some of you are probably wondering if Breatharianism is impossible, and that it will kill you if you really try to do it, then how come there are people out there that claim they can do it?
There's a very simple explanation for that. It's because...
1. Those who claim to be able to do it are lying.
Those that claim to practice Breatharianism and do it successfully have either been shown to be frauds, or are greatly suspected of lying, and have people help them cover up the fact that they eat and drink just like the rest of us.
Wiley Brooks, probably one of the most famous Breatharians there is, has been caught numerous times eating and drinking stuff. He also admits that he "occasionally" eats a Double Quarter-Pounder with Cheese from McDonalds, and drinks a Diet Coke, although he claims this to add balance to one's self...
Jasmuheen, another famous Breatharian, actually agreed to take a challenge by the Australian television program 60 Minutes to test her claims that she can live off of air and light alone by allowing the television show to supervise her and make sure she didn't eat or drink anything. The test was stopped after those who were observing her realized that her health was declining and that if they didn't stop the experiment, she would die.
The fact remains is that no one can survive without food and water. Those who claim you can and that they can do it are either lying or deluded.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
And now... Part Six of Debunking House of Numbers
Finally, after over a month of fighting illegal DMCA takedown notices, threats of having his Youtube channel being taken down, threats of lawsuits (as well as other types of threats), having his personnel information shared by a bunch of AIDS denialists, as well as some of those same AIDS denialists trying to silence him in one of the most blatant examples of censorship abuse in internet history in what was a clear attempt by the creators of the "documentary" House of Number to silence any criticism of their so called film, and to hide the truth about their blatant deceptiveness and lying, Myles Power has finally released Part 6 of his Debunking of House of Numbers series.
In this part Myles's friend James Gurney from History of Infection talks about HIV replication and the evidence of it's existence.
Please enjoy!
In this part Myles's friend James Gurney from History of Infection talks about HIV replication and the evidence of it's existence.
Please enjoy!
Friday, March 7, 2014
How perception is used for deception in promoting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories
Perception is one of the most commonly used tools of advertisers. If done correctly it can be used to sell a person a product or an idea, even if it's something they do not want or need. All you need is an image combined with some information (factual or not) that catches a person's eye and makes them interested in whatever is being sold which ultimately leads them to buying whatever it is that is being sold.
Promoters of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories know this as well, and will often times create pictures on the internet of images coupled with text in an attempt to get you to "buy" whatever claims that they are making.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
Looks nice, doesn't it? The pretty, smiling young woman that catches your eye and causes you to read whatever it is that the picture says and perhaps even gets you to try or believe whatever it is that the text is saying, which in this case is an advertisement to get people to try out Earthing.
This is an example of using positive images inorder to fool people into believing that something that isn't true. In this case it the original creator wants you to believe that Earthing works.
Now lets take a look at this next picture, courtesy of Illuminutti.com:
Not as nice looking as the previous picture, is it?
Except for the photo in the bottom left side of the page, everything else about this picture is exactly the same as the one above this one.
Most people probably would not have bothered to read the text on the second picture due to the shear fact that they would be to disgusted by the photo to bother read the text. Even if a person did read the text they probably wouldn't try Earthing in the first place out of shear fear of ending up like that guy.
This is ofcourse why the creators of the first photo wouldn't use such a photo. They know that such a photo would probably make a person sick to their stomach and not even bother to read the text, more or less be even interested in Earthing.
Ofcourse while positive images work very well in promoting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, negative images can often have the same impact, if not more so than positive images if it's done right:
Now for many people if they saw something like that and then read the text they would probably never eat any GMO foods again, and they probably wouldn't bother to do any research into the claims either. They would just see the image and be to scared to actually investigate what the text is saying, which is probably what the creators of that picture intended it to cause people do.
The fact is that anytime you see stuff like this on the internet you should always question the claims being made, and always assume that whomever made it is trying to screw with your perception inorder to deceive you and get you to to believe them without questioning their claims.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
5 Things I've noticed about... Homeopathic Medicine
Homeopathic medicine is probably one of the oldest forms of alternative medicine there is. Infact it was invented in the late 1700's by German physician Samuel Hahnemann, and has been with ever since.
Now there are lots of claims about homeopathy and what it does, and after looking into them I've noticed several different things about homeopathic medicine.
So here are five things I've noticed about homeopathic medicine:
5. You can make it at home.
Homeopathic medicine is very easy to make. You don't even need a complex chemistry lab inorder to make it. You can make it right in your kitchen!
Got a headache and you want to make some homeopathic aspirin inorder to get rid of it? Well here's what you do:
Step 1: Get one tablet of aspirin and about ten bottles of water.
Step 2: Crush aspirin and put it into one of the bottles of water.
Step 3: Shake up bottle.
Step 4: Take one drop from said bottle and put it into the next bottle.
Step 5: Repeat steps 3 and 4 until done doing so with all bottles.
Now if you do all of this you will have homeopathic aspirin and your headache should go away in a few hours... same as any other normal headache would if you were to take nothing at all.
Actually this might not work, and this is because...
4. You're suppose to use something that can cause the problems that you currently have inorder to cure them.
Inorder for homeopathic medicine to actually work (atleast according to people who make and deal with homeopathic medicine) you don't use heavily diluted medicine that would cure whatever it is that you have. What you actually are suppose to use is something that could cause the symptoms that you're having rather than actually cure them. Think of it as a kind of like a vaccine, minus any backing from the scientific and medical communities.
So if you want to cure that headache of yours using heavily diluted aspirin isn't going to work. What you actually want to use is something that can cause a headache if you take it in it's pure form, like beer, only it has to be heavily diluted.
So using homeopathy logic the best thing to take when you have a headache is a ball park beer, because those things are watered down all to hell.
3. A lot of it is REALLY watered down.
If you think that the homeopathic aspirin that I gave instructions above on how to make sounds really diluted (probably to the point where three to four bottles in you're not going to find any aspirin molecules) that's nothing (pun intended) compared to what some homeopathic medicine makers sell.
Some homeopathic medicine that is currently on the market is so diluted that you would have to consume the equivalent of all the water on the Earth inorder to have a chance of getting one molecule of whatever the original ingredient was...
Then there is Oscillococcinum, which is so diluted that one would have to consume it equivalent of 10321 times the number atoms in the known universe inorder to have a chance of consuming even one molecule of whatever ingredient it is that the that the manufacturers used.
Now I bet many of you at this point are probably wondering how exactly is homeopathic medicine suppose to work? There is actually a explanation for that...
2. It's suppose to work off of water memory.
According to homeopathic practitioners water has memory, and that water can somehow contain the memory of whatever it is that it has come in contact with, and somehow this memory transfers over to us, and thus the more you dilute something the more memory the water retains of it...
If water memory is real then how would putting something in our water that is suppose to make us sicker make us better? Infact if water memory actually is real then drinking any water should kill any one of us instantly due to water memory retaining memory of all of the pollutants and toxins that's ever gone into it.
Fortunately we are all still here, so it leads me to think that there is nothing to this water memory stuff, and that much like the rest of homeopathic medicine...
1. It all sounds like BS.
Multiple dilutions. Using something that's suppose to make you sick inorder to cure you. Water memory. It all sounds like BS, right?
Well there's a reason why it all sounds like BS. It is.
Homeopathic medicine has never been proven to work. At best you may get a placebo effect where you think it's curing you but really you're healing no faster than you would if you took nothing at all.
Homeopathic medicine is a fraud. It always has been and it always will be.
The only reason why anyone would believe that homeopathic medicine works is either they have been tricked into believing that it works, or they are so into alternative medicine that they refuse to believe that it doesn't work.
Now there are lots of claims about homeopathy and what it does, and after looking into them I've noticed several different things about homeopathic medicine.
So here are five things I've noticed about homeopathic medicine:
5. You can make it at home.
Homeopathic medicine is very easy to make. You don't even need a complex chemistry lab inorder to make it. You can make it right in your kitchen!
Got a headache and you want to make some homeopathic aspirin inorder to get rid of it? Well here's what you do:
Step 1: Get one tablet of aspirin and about ten bottles of water.
Step 2: Crush aspirin and put it into one of the bottles of water.
Step 3: Shake up bottle.
Step 4: Take one drop from said bottle and put it into the next bottle.
Step 5: Repeat steps 3 and 4 until done doing so with all bottles.
Now if you do all of this you will have homeopathic aspirin and your headache should go away in a few hours... same as any other normal headache would if you were to take nothing at all.
Actually this might not work, and this is because...
4. You're suppose to use something that can cause the problems that you currently have inorder to cure them.
Inorder for homeopathic medicine to actually work (atleast according to people who make and deal with homeopathic medicine) you don't use heavily diluted medicine that would cure whatever it is that you have. What you actually are suppose to use is something that could cause the symptoms that you're having rather than actually cure them. Think of it as a kind of like a vaccine, minus any backing from the scientific and medical communities.
So if you want to cure that headache of yours using heavily diluted aspirin isn't going to work. What you actually want to use is something that can cause a headache if you take it in it's pure form, like beer, only it has to be heavily diluted.
So using homeopathy logic the best thing to take when you have a headache is a ball park beer, because those things are watered down all to hell.
3. A lot of it is REALLY watered down.
If you think that the homeopathic aspirin that I gave instructions above on how to make sounds really diluted (probably to the point where three to four bottles in you're not going to find any aspirin molecules) that's nothing (pun intended) compared to what some homeopathic medicine makers sell.
Some homeopathic medicine that is currently on the market is so diluted that you would have to consume the equivalent of all the water on the Earth inorder to have a chance of getting one molecule of whatever the original ingredient was...
Then there is Oscillococcinum, which is so diluted that one would have to consume it equivalent of 10321 times the number atoms in the known universe inorder to have a chance of consuming even one molecule of whatever ingredient it is that the that the manufacturers used.
Now I bet many of you at this point are probably wondering how exactly is homeopathic medicine suppose to work? There is actually a explanation for that...
2. It's suppose to work off of water memory.
According to homeopathic practitioners water has memory, and that water can somehow contain the memory of whatever it is that it has come in contact with, and somehow this memory transfers over to us, and thus the more you dilute something the more memory the water retains of it...
If water memory is real then how would putting something in our water that is suppose to make us sicker make us better? Infact if water memory actually is real then drinking any water should kill any one of us instantly due to water memory retaining memory of all of the pollutants and toxins that's ever gone into it.
Fortunately we are all still here, so it leads me to think that there is nothing to this water memory stuff, and that much like the rest of homeopathic medicine...
1. It all sounds like BS.
Multiple dilutions. Using something that's suppose to make you sick inorder to cure you. Water memory. It all sounds like BS, right?
Well there's a reason why it all sounds like BS. It is.
Homeopathic medicine has never been proven to work. At best you may get a placebo effect where you think it's curing you but really you're healing no faster than you would if you took nothing at all.
Homeopathic medicine is a fraud. It always has been and it always will be.
The only reason why anyone would believe that homeopathic medicine works is either they have been tricked into believing that it works, or they are so into alternative medicine that they refuse to believe that it doesn't work.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
5 Things I've noticed about... Alternative Cancer Cures
Alternative cancer cures.
These so called cures have been around with us for as long as science based cancer treatments have been around with us. Infact some of them have been around even longer than that.
These so called cures, while different, also have many things in common, which I have narrowed down to five different things.
So here are five things I've noticed about alternative cancer cures:
5. There's a lot of them.
One of the biggest things that I've noticed about alternative cancer cures is that there are a lot of different types of "cures" floating around the internet and alternative medicine communities, and that there seems to be a new one that comes out every few weeks.
I've seen claims that balancing your ph levels, vitamins, organic foods, "detoxing" your body of chemicals, breathing in pure oxygen, and soursop can cure cancer, and in ways and speeds that would make conventional treatments obsolete.
The most recent claims I've seen concern cannabis oil. Along with doing all sorts of other stuff, the rumors spreading around the internet is that either cannabis oil can cure or atleast stop the growth of cancer cells.
While there are a lot of different alternative medical treatments that are claimed to cure cancer, there are a few things that they all have in common, such as the fact that...
4. Many of the claims are exaggerated and dubious.
Of all the alternative cancer cures that I have seen floating around the internet they all just sound blatantly exaggerated, and when I do some research into these claims I find out that they are often times full of half truths, or are outright false. Examples of this would be Soursop which is claimed to be 10,000 times more effective than chemo (both exaggerated and false), and vitamins are often claimed to kill cancer cells because it can kill them in a petri dish (that doesn't mean it can kill them in the human body).
Many people who promote these so called alternative cancer cures also claim that there is a "conspiracy" by "big pharma" to suppress these so called "cures" (which they have done a terrible job at) and is the reason why doctors won't even mention these alternative "cures". This is ofcourse made up nonsense and BS conspiracy theories. The real reason why doctors don't recommend alternative cancer cures is because...
3. They don't work and are dangerous.
As the old saying goes "You know what they call an alternative medicine that works? Medicine."
The fact is that these so called alternative cancer cures don't work. They have been tested in scientific laboratories, and have been shown not to work and do nothing to reduce or stop the spread of cancer cells. The only thing that has been shown when a person purely uses alternative cancer cures is that a person will die of cancer just as fast as if they had used no cancer treatments at all. This is why no legitimate medical doctor would ever recommend any alternative cancer cures.
Worst yet is that some of these cancer cures are actually harmful. Soursop for instance has neurotoxins in it that can cause a person to develop symptoms similar to Parkinson's disease, and cansema, another so called alternative cancer cure is corrosive and destroys your skin. There are also many different herbs that are floating around that are said to cure cancer, but in reality are poisonous and can kill you.
Ofcourse no one who believes that alternative cancer cures work would know this, nor would some of them really care primarily due to the "statistics" that the profiteers... I mean promoters of alternative cancer cures often times use. And speaking of those statistics...
2. The statistics alternative cancer cure promoters use are exaggerated and flawed.
Many times accompanying articles about alternative cancer cures (especially on websites that promote these "cures") and are some kind of statistics and information about how many people have been cured of cancer by taking whatever it is they are promoting. What many of these so called statistics and information may or may not tell you is how many of those people were using conventional cancer treatments during, or before, or after they took the alternative cancer cures. To most people this would create a cross contamination in the data as it could be argued that it is just as likely (much more likely actually) that the conventional cancer treatments are what cured a person of cancer and not the alternative cancer treatments.
Now when you remove all the people who admit they used conventional cancer treatments and only include those that claim to have purely used alternative cancer cures, the number of people who believe that they successfully rid themselves of cancer is shockingly small, and can be explained as either the body healing itself (it's rare, but it does happen) or the person was given a false diagnosis (which is why a second diagnosis is always needed after a first positive diagnosis is made inorder to confirm if a person has cancer), or that some of the people questioned could be outright lying and actually did have conventional cancer treatments, or have never been diagnosed with cancer, they just claimed they had it.
What these statistics do not tell you is how many people actually died while using these alternative cancer cures, either indirectly as a result of foregoing conventional cancer treatments, or directly as a result of being poisoned by some of these "cures".
Also another thing that the promoters of alternative cancer cures tend to do...
1. The promoters of alternative cancer cures love to talk about the negatives of conventional cancer treatments, but never the positives.
As a way to help promote alternative cancer cures the promoters of these so called cures love to talk about all of the bad stuff about conventional cancer cures, primarily how harsh some of it can be, and how expensive it can be, and that sometimes conventional treatments do not work. While this is true it's still fear mongering that's done inorder to scare people into foregoing conventional cancer treatments and use the alternative ones.
What's almost never mentioned is how conventional cancer treatments have consistently increased the life expectancy and survivability of people who were diagnosed with cancer for over the past 50 years, and that there are new treatments for cancer that are based off of science based research that are coming out all the time. Infact I know a person who recently was completely cured of a type of cancer that ten years would have meant a death sentence, and this is all thanks to science based medicine. His story is just one of millions of examples of how science based cancer treatments have prolonged peoples lives, or rid people of cancer!
Ofcourse you'll never hear that from a person whom promotes the non-science based "cures".
These so called cures have been around with us for as long as science based cancer treatments have been around with us. Infact some of them have been around even longer than that.
These so called cures, while different, also have many things in common, which I have narrowed down to five different things.
So here are five things I've noticed about alternative cancer cures:
5. There's a lot of them.
One of the biggest things that I've noticed about alternative cancer cures is that there are a lot of different types of "cures" floating around the internet and alternative medicine communities, and that there seems to be a new one that comes out every few weeks.
I've seen claims that balancing your ph levels, vitamins, organic foods, "detoxing" your body of chemicals, breathing in pure oxygen, and soursop can cure cancer, and in ways and speeds that would make conventional treatments obsolete.
The most recent claims I've seen concern cannabis oil. Along with doing all sorts of other stuff, the rumors spreading around the internet is that either cannabis oil can cure or atleast stop the growth of cancer cells.
While there are a lot of different alternative medical treatments that are claimed to cure cancer, there are a few things that they all have in common, such as the fact that...
4. Many of the claims are exaggerated and dubious.
Of all the alternative cancer cures that I have seen floating around the internet they all just sound blatantly exaggerated, and when I do some research into these claims I find out that they are often times full of half truths, or are outright false. Examples of this would be Soursop which is claimed to be 10,000 times more effective than chemo (both exaggerated and false), and vitamins are often claimed to kill cancer cells because it can kill them in a petri dish (that doesn't mean it can kill them in the human body).
Many people who promote these so called alternative cancer cures also claim that there is a "conspiracy" by "big pharma" to suppress these so called "cures" (which they have done a terrible job at) and is the reason why doctors won't even mention these alternative "cures". This is ofcourse made up nonsense and BS conspiracy theories. The real reason why doctors don't recommend alternative cancer cures is because...
3. They don't work and are dangerous.
As the old saying goes "You know what they call an alternative medicine that works? Medicine."
The fact is that these so called alternative cancer cures don't work. They have been tested in scientific laboratories, and have been shown not to work and do nothing to reduce or stop the spread of cancer cells. The only thing that has been shown when a person purely uses alternative cancer cures is that a person will die of cancer just as fast as if they had used no cancer treatments at all. This is why no legitimate medical doctor would ever recommend any alternative cancer cures.
Worst yet is that some of these cancer cures are actually harmful. Soursop for instance has neurotoxins in it that can cause a person to develop symptoms similar to Parkinson's disease, and cansema, another so called alternative cancer cure is corrosive and destroys your skin. There are also many different herbs that are floating around that are said to cure cancer, but in reality are poisonous and can kill you.
Ofcourse no one who believes that alternative cancer cures work would know this, nor would some of them really care primarily due to the "statistics" that the profiteers... I mean promoters of alternative cancer cures often times use. And speaking of those statistics...
2. The statistics alternative cancer cure promoters use are exaggerated and flawed.
Many times accompanying articles about alternative cancer cures (especially on websites that promote these "cures") and are some kind of statistics and information about how many people have been cured of cancer by taking whatever it is they are promoting. What many of these so called statistics and information may or may not tell you is how many of those people were using conventional cancer treatments during, or before, or after they took the alternative cancer cures. To most people this would create a cross contamination in the data as it could be argued that it is just as likely (much more likely actually) that the conventional cancer treatments are what cured a person of cancer and not the alternative cancer treatments.
Now when you remove all the people who admit they used conventional cancer treatments and only include those that claim to have purely used alternative cancer cures, the number of people who believe that they successfully rid themselves of cancer is shockingly small, and can be explained as either the body healing itself (it's rare, but it does happen) or the person was given a false diagnosis (which is why a second diagnosis is always needed after a first positive diagnosis is made inorder to confirm if a person has cancer), or that some of the people questioned could be outright lying and actually did have conventional cancer treatments, or have never been diagnosed with cancer, they just claimed they had it.
What these statistics do not tell you is how many people actually died while using these alternative cancer cures, either indirectly as a result of foregoing conventional cancer treatments, or directly as a result of being poisoned by some of these "cures".
Also another thing that the promoters of alternative cancer cures tend to do...
1. The promoters of alternative cancer cures love to talk about the negatives of conventional cancer treatments, but never the positives.
As a way to help promote alternative cancer cures the promoters of these so called cures love to talk about all of the bad stuff about conventional cancer cures, primarily how harsh some of it can be, and how expensive it can be, and that sometimes conventional treatments do not work. While this is true it's still fear mongering that's done inorder to scare people into foregoing conventional cancer treatments and use the alternative ones.
What's almost never mentioned is how conventional cancer treatments have consistently increased the life expectancy and survivability of people who were diagnosed with cancer for over the past 50 years, and that there are new treatments for cancer that are based off of science based research that are coming out all the time. Infact I know a person who recently was completely cured of a type of cancer that ten years would have meant a death sentence, and this is all thanks to science based medicine. His story is just one of millions of examples of how science based cancer treatments have prolonged peoples lives, or rid people of cancer!
Ofcourse you'll never hear that from a person whom promotes the non-science based "cures".
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The best Videos of the Week for 2013
Last year I started putting up on this page one video per week.
Now I've had a lot of videos on here that were just great, and today I've decided to have a look back at what I consider to be the five best videos of the week for 2013:
5. Alex Jones As Alien Lizard Explains Obamacare
Probably every skeptic around the world knows who Alex Jones. While many skeptic bloggers have atleast written up a couple of articles to either discredit him and/or show what kind of a fool he is, still by far the best person to discredit Alex Jones and to make him look like a fool... is Alex Jones.
This clip from Right Wing Watch's Youtube page clearly shows why that's true:
4. Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 6 of 7 - The psychology behind a 9/11 truther
From late 2012 to early 2013 Myles Power created a seven part series that is in my opinion one of the best 9/11 conspiracy theory debunking videos that I have ever seen, and the sixth video in the series, which explains the psychology and mindset of a 9/11 Truther, and infact most conspiracy theorists, could have itself been a stand alone video apart from the series.
3. Five Stupid Things About the Anti-Vax Movement
Steve Shives is one of my favorite vloggers on Youtube, and his Five Stupid Things segment is my favorite of all of his video segments, and in this video he rips the anti-vaccination movement a new one, showing not only how all of their claims are completely bogus, but also how dangerous it is not to vaccinate your child, or yourself for that matter.
2. Dumbest Anti-Gay Comments (Compilation)
How best to expose the leaders in the anti-gay movement as the homophobic bigots they really are? Actually you don't have to. They do a good enough exposing themselves by making the most vile comments about homosexuals, and do so in public for all the world to see as this clip from Secular Talk shows:
1. Psychic Char Margolis fail on WGN Morning News
I know I might sound a little bit malicious for this, but I love it when a psychic fails, and not only fails, but fails on live TV for the whole world to see! In this clip from WGN News "psychic" Char Margolis fails to make a psychic reading (or what is better known as a cold reading) and pretty much makes a fool of herself infront of the world:
Now I've had a lot of videos on here that were just great, and today I've decided to have a look back at what I consider to be the five best videos of the week for 2013:
5. Alex Jones As Alien Lizard Explains Obamacare
Probably every skeptic around the world knows who Alex Jones. While many skeptic bloggers have atleast written up a couple of articles to either discredit him and/or show what kind of a fool he is, still by far the best person to discredit Alex Jones and to make him look like a fool... is Alex Jones.
This clip from Right Wing Watch's Youtube page clearly shows why that's true:
4. Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 6 of 7 - The psychology behind a 9/11 truther
From late 2012 to early 2013 Myles Power created a seven part series that is in my opinion one of the best 9/11 conspiracy theory debunking videos that I have ever seen, and the sixth video in the series, which explains the psychology and mindset of a 9/11 Truther, and infact most conspiracy theorists, could have itself been a stand alone video apart from the series.
3. Five Stupid Things About the Anti-Vax Movement
Steve Shives is one of my favorite vloggers on Youtube, and his Five Stupid Things segment is my favorite of all of his video segments, and in this video he rips the anti-vaccination movement a new one, showing not only how all of their claims are completely bogus, but also how dangerous it is not to vaccinate your child, or yourself for that matter.
2. Dumbest Anti-Gay Comments (Compilation)
How best to expose the leaders in the anti-gay movement as the homophobic bigots they really are? Actually you don't have to. They do a good enough exposing themselves by making the most vile comments about homosexuals, and do so in public for all the world to see as this clip from Secular Talk shows:
1. Psychic Char Margolis fail on WGN Morning News
I know I might sound a little bit malicious for this, but I love it when a psychic fails, and not only fails, but fails on live TV for the whole world to see! In this clip from WGN News "psychic" Char Margolis fails to make a psychic reading (or what is better known as a cold reading) and pretty much makes a fool of herself infront of the world:
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Anti-Vaccination Critics shutdown: How Facebook should prevent and punish Anti-Vaccination supporters (or anyone) who wrongfully get their critics banned from Facebook?
Over the past couple of weeks it's been revealed that Anti-Vaccination groups and their supporters on Facebook have been launching false flag attacks (and I don't mean types that Alex Jones thinks happens every time a shooting or a bombing or a natural disaster occurs in this country) against groups that are pro-vaccination and/or critical of anti-vaccination groups and their supporters and propaganda. These false flaggings have unfortunately resulted in the temporary (yet still wrongful) banning of multiple people and groups from Facebook who are critics of the Anti-Vaccination movement. This needs to stop. Infact not only does this need to stop, but the people who are making these false flag reports need to be punished.
While many of you have some ideas on what should be done inorder to curb false flag reporting (which I would love to hear from you in the comments section) I have a few suggestions of my own:
The first thing that needs to happen is that Facebook needs to make it easier to challenge a complaint and a ban. While you can do this even now, it's not an easy process. Plus a person should be given a chance to defend themselves before a ban is about to occur. No more automatic bans unless a certain amount of time has gone by after a complaint was sent (I say a minimum of six hours).
Now the second thing that should happen to help curb false flagging abuse on Facebook is that those that do abuse the reporting system need to have their ability to report posts and groups and individuals that they don't believe should be on Facebook more difficult. Granted I'm not saying they should be left unable to report someone or some group that really does contain offensive or illegal content (unless they continue to abuse the system even after restrictions have been placed on them, then their ability to report groups and people should be taken away, and they should be banned temporarily) but the process should be made more difficult for those that abuse the system, and probably should include a screen shot of any content that is being reported upon, as well as include more details about why something is being reported.
Going along side with the second suggestion that I believe Facebook needs to do inorder to curb false flagging abuse, after a person has already had restrictions put against for false flag abuse, if they do report someone or some group for their content and Facebook determines that it doesn't violate their policies, the person or group should be informed that someone sent a complaint against them that was struct down, and the person or group should be told whom that person is, and given the option of whether or not they want to block that individual.
Now these couple of suggestions might help against individuals who abuse the reporting system, but what about groups that do the same thing and organize their followers to report individuals and groups inorder to silence them (this can apply to any group, not just the anti-vaccination groups)?
First, for groups that do frequently abuse the reporting system, first give them a warning, then a ban if they continue, then a longer ban with a warning that if they continue to abuse the reporting system that their page will be removed and deleted, and if they continue to abuse the system, then Facebook should remove and delete that group.
The second thing that should be done to these groups that abuse the reporting system is that they should have the ability to control what is and isn't posted on their page and who can and cannot post on their page restricted as well.
Anti-vaccination groups (along with chemtrail, anti-GMO, fundamentalist groups, and generally any group that promotes conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and bigotry) are notorious for blocking people and deleting any posts that they make that either counter-argues something that was posted in the group, or criticizes the group. One of the things that Facebook can do as a way to punish a group that abuses the reporting system is to alert the person whom has had a post deleted, or has been blocked, and give that person a chance to dispute the deletion or blocking. If they chose to try to prove that the deletion or blocking was unwarranted and didn't violate any of Facebook's rules, then Facebook will restore the post or unblock the person from the group, and also leave the group unable to delete anything else from that person, or block that person.
Now, do I believe that Facebook would do any of the things that I have suggested here? No, but I think that we all can agree that Facebook does need to do something inorder to curb false flag abuse.
While many of you have some ideas on what should be done inorder to curb false flag reporting (which I would love to hear from you in the comments section) I have a few suggestions of my own:
The first thing that needs to happen is that Facebook needs to make it easier to challenge a complaint and a ban. While you can do this even now, it's not an easy process. Plus a person should be given a chance to defend themselves before a ban is about to occur. No more automatic bans unless a certain amount of time has gone by after a complaint was sent (I say a minimum of six hours).
Now the second thing that should happen to help curb false flagging abuse on Facebook is that those that do abuse the reporting system need to have their ability to report posts and groups and individuals that they don't believe should be on Facebook more difficult. Granted I'm not saying they should be left unable to report someone or some group that really does contain offensive or illegal content (unless they continue to abuse the system even after restrictions have been placed on them, then their ability to report groups and people should be taken away, and they should be banned temporarily) but the process should be made more difficult for those that abuse the system, and probably should include a screen shot of any content that is being reported upon, as well as include more details about why something is being reported.
Going along side with the second suggestion that I believe Facebook needs to do inorder to curb false flagging abuse, after a person has already had restrictions put against for false flag abuse, if they do report someone or some group for their content and Facebook determines that it doesn't violate their policies, the person or group should be informed that someone sent a complaint against them that was struct down, and the person or group should be told whom that person is, and given the option of whether or not they want to block that individual.
Now these couple of suggestions might help against individuals who abuse the reporting system, but what about groups that do the same thing and organize their followers to report individuals and groups inorder to silence them (this can apply to any group, not just the anti-vaccination groups)?
First, for groups that do frequently abuse the reporting system, first give them a warning, then a ban if they continue, then a longer ban with a warning that if they continue to abuse the reporting system that their page will be removed and deleted, and if they continue to abuse the system, then Facebook should remove and delete that group.
The second thing that should be done to these groups that abuse the reporting system is that they should have the ability to control what is and isn't posted on their page and who can and cannot post on their page restricted as well.
Anti-vaccination groups (along with chemtrail, anti-GMO, fundamentalist groups, and generally any group that promotes conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and bigotry) are notorious for blocking people and deleting any posts that they make that either counter-argues something that was posted in the group, or criticizes the group. One of the things that Facebook can do as a way to punish a group that abuses the reporting system is to alert the person whom has had a post deleted, or has been blocked, and give that person a chance to dispute the deletion or blocking. If they chose to try to prove that the deletion or blocking was unwarranted and didn't violate any of Facebook's rules, then Facebook will restore the post or unblock the person from the group, and also leave the group unable to delete anything else from that person, or block that person.
Now, do I believe that Facebook would do any of the things that I have suggested here? No, but I think that we all can agree that Facebook does need to do something inorder to curb false flag abuse.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
I am Anti-Organic Foods
Anyone whom has read this blog is probably aware that I don't like the Anti-GMO movement. I find the movement to be highly deceptive and uses propaganda and fear mongering in order to get people to buy "organic" food, and to reject all GMO foods no matter what.
Normally in spite their BS I would still have bought and eaten organic foods, not because I believed it was healthier for you (although I admit I at one time I did believe that) but because it tasted a little better, but now knowing more facts about the Anti-GMO movement and the extremes that they have gone to, and about organic food and it's sustainability, as well as the organic food industry itself, I can no longer consciously buy and/or eat organic foods. To put it bluntly I am now Anti-Organic Foods, and I have several reasons (besides what I just what said here) why.
My first and foremost reasons for why I am now Anti-Organic Foods is because of the Anti-GMO movement itself and what it's highly deceptive propaganda and fear mongering has done, which is to cause governments around the world to pass completely moronic Anti-GMO laws that is based off of fear rather than legitimate science, and has at times because of these laws hampered research into GMO foods, and to cause normally intelligent to reject GMO foods without any reason other than what lies the Anti-GMO movement has told them.
Another reason why I am now Anti-Organic Foods is because of the deaths that have been caused by the Anti-GMO movement and their propaganda, particularly in developing in certain developing countries where the leaders of those countries actually rejected food donations because they were lead to believe (most notably by Greenpeace) that the food may have contain GMO foods and was (according to these Anti-GMO groups) poisonous. This type of deception has resulted in thousands of deaths, and possibly more.
My third reason why I have rejected organic foods is because of the physical destruction caused by the Anti-GMO movement, particularly of experimental GMO food crops due to the perception that these crops were dangerous. This destruction has caused millions of dollars worth of damage, not to mention the lose of valuable research data. The fact that many Anti-GMO groups (including Greenpeace) often praise this destruction, and have been accused of directly or indirectly responsible of being the cause of such destruction only makes the whole Anti-GMO movement look so much worse to me.
Now my fourth reason for rejecting organic foods isn't because of the Anti-GMO movement, but because of organic foods itself.
Organic foods are luxury foods. That's all they are. They are not any healthier or better for you, they just taste better. They won't solve the world's food supply problems, and infact will make them worse due to organic foods having lower crop yields than GMO crops, and also not being able to be grown in as many places as GMO crops can.
Organic crops are also not as environmentally friendly as they're made out to be and require far more land to grow on than GMO crops do, and require far more pesticides inorder to keep insects away than GMO crops (and despite what you have been told a lot of farmers that grow organic foods actually do use pesticides, and lots of it).
My fifth reason for rejecting organic foods is because of the organic food industry itself, particularly with the self created perception that the organic food industry is a small and humble force. It is not.
Some of the farmers in the organic food industry might be small and humble, but the industry as a whole is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry (Whole Foods Market, one of the largest organic foods supermarkets, made over nine billion in 2010) so in my opinion it's very deceptive how the whole organic food industry has made itself out to be.
My final reason why I have rejected organic foods is because of the self imposed perception that organic foods are ethical.
In my opinion organic foods are not ethical. It's perceived ethicalness is based off of lies created by a group do-gooder no-nothings who believe that because something that is created by a multi-billion dollar corporation then it must be evil and dangerous. This type of belief has lead to both the creation of the most outrageous lies and have been the cause of many deaths, all inorder to force people to eat luxury foods.
Because of all this I have decided to avoid eating organic foods when and where I can. I just don't feel right eating something that is based off of lies.
Normally in spite their BS I would still have bought and eaten organic foods, not because I believed it was healthier for you (although I admit I at one time I did believe that) but because it tasted a little better, but now knowing more facts about the Anti-GMO movement and the extremes that they have gone to, and about organic food and it's sustainability, as well as the organic food industry itself, I can no longer consciously buy and/or eat organic foods. To put it bluntly I am now Anti-Organic Foods, and I have several reasons (besides what I just what said here) why.
My first and foremost reasons for why I am now Anti-Organic Foods is because of the Anti-GMO movement itself and what it's highly deceptive propaganda and fear mongering has done, which is to cause governments around the world to pass completely moronic Anti-GMO laws that is based off of fear rather than legitimate science, and has at times because of these laws hampered research into GMO foods, and to cause normally intelligent to reject GMO foods without any reason other than what lies the Anti-GMO movement has told them.
Another reason why I am now Anti-Organic Foods is because of the deaths that have been caused by the Anti-GMO movement and their propaganda, particularly in developing in certain developing countries where the leaders of those countries actually rejected food donations because they were lead to believe (most notably by Greenpeace) that the food may have contain GMO foods and was (according to these Anti-GMO groups) poisonous. This type of deception has resulted in thousands of deaths, and possibly more.
My third reason why I have rejected organic foods is because of the physical destruction caused by the Anti-GMO movement, particularly of experimental GMO food crops due to the perception that these crops were dangerous. This destruction has caused millions of dollars worth of damage, not to mention the lose of valuable research data. The fact that many Anti-GMO groups (including Greenpeace) often praise this destruction, and have been accused of directly or indirectly responsible of being the cause of such destruction only makes the whole Anti-GMO movement look so much worse to me.
Now my fourth reason for rejecting organic foods isn't because of the Anti-GMO movement, but because of organic foods itself.
Organic foods are luxury foods. That's all they are. They are not any healthier or better for you, they just taste better. They won't solve the world's food supply problems, and infact will make them worse due to organic foods having lower crop yields than GMO crops, and also not being able to be grown in as many places as GMO crops can.
Organic crops are also not as environmentally friendly as they're made out to be and require far more land to grow on than GMO crops do, and require far more pesticides inorder to keep insects away than GMO crops (and despite what you have been told a lot of farmers that grow organic foods actually do use pesticides, and lots of it).
My fifth reason for rejecting organic foods is because of the organic food industry itself, particularly with the self created perception that the organic food industry is a small and humble force. It is not.
Some of the farmers in the organic food industry might be small and humble, but the industry as a whole is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry (Whole Foods Market, one of the largest organic foods supermarkets, made over nine billion in 2010) so in my opinion it's very deceptive how the whole organic food industry has made itself out to be.
My final reason why I have rejected organic foods is because of the self imposed perception that organic foods are ethical.
In my opinion organic foods are not ethical. It's perceived ethicalness is based off of lies created by a group do-gooder no-nothings who believe that because something that is created by a multi-billion dollar corporation then it must be evil and dangerous. This type of belief has lead to both the creation of the most outrageous lies and have been the cause of many deaths, all inorder to force people to eat luxury foods.
Because of all this I have decided to avoid eating organic foods when and where I can. I just don't feel right eating something that is based off of lies.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Anti-Vaccination pics should come with a disclaimer...
This morning while I was going through my Facebook page and looking around at some of the skeptics groups that I belong to I came across this anti-vaccination photo in one of these skeptics groups that was posted there for the sheer means of mocking and criticizing the anti-vaccination movement for their blatant hypocrisy:
Now ofcourse anyone who is either a skeptic or a medical professional can clearly see why this picture is being mocked and criticized, but for those who don't I'll explain why:
It's mocked because of the irony that people in the anti-vaccination movement actually believe that getting "information" off of a website that promotes pseudoscience and alternative medicine rather than a legitimate science and/or medical website or journal apparently makes you well educated, and that those who are in the anti-vaccination movement actually believe that they are well educated about vaccines.
Also, it's criticized because it gives the impression that people who advise against vaccination are themselves well educated, which is often not the truth and that in reality they are actually to dumb to realize that they don't know anything about vaccines other than what they've been told (or scared into) by the anti-vaccination movement. Even those that really are well educated have either just been fooled by the claims of the anti-vaccination movement into believing that vaccines are dangerous, or are just lying about their beliefs for reasons that are their own (usually because they don't want to admit that they are wrong).
If pictures like this were truly honest they would contain a disclaimer at the bottom that says either "all the information about vaccines that we get comes from websites that promote subjects that are considered to be pseudoscience and/or conspiracy theories" or "all information we get about vaccines are from sources that are not considered to be legitimate medical and/or scientific sources" or "it is against professional medical and scientific opinions that a person should not vaccinate their children, as well as may be in violation of the law in some areas" or perhaps even "many scientists consider this picture to be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and should be ignored and disregarded".
Regardless of what disclaimer should be placed on an anti-vaccination picture such as this one (or any anti-vaccination picture for that matter) it does show the arrogance within the anti-vaccination movement in that they regard themselves as being intelligent and well educated when it comes to vaccines, when in reality it is often the exact opposite, and that they actually don't know anything about vaccines and simply blindly follow some quack that poses as a doctor or as a medical expert that goes around claiming that vaccines are dangerous and can create all of these health issues in children rather than actually prevent health issues.
Perhaps one more type of disclaimer that should also be included with such a picture should say "all information we have regarding the dangers of vaccines have been discredited by legitimate scientific and medical institutions, or have been shown to be fraudulent."
Now ofcourse anyone who is either a skeptic or a medical professional can clearly see why this picture is being mocked and criticized, but for those who don't I'll explain why:
It's mocked because of the irony that people in the anti-vaccination movement actually believe that getting "information" off of a website that promotes pseudoscience and alternative medicine rather than a legitimate science and/or medical website or journal apparently makes you well educated, and that those who are in the anti-vaccination movement actually believe that they are well educated about vaccines.
Also, it's criticized because it gives the impression that people who advise against vaccination are themselves well educated, which is often not the truth and that in reality they are actually to dumb to realize that they don't know anything about vaccines other than what they've been told (or scared into) by the anti-vaccination movement. Even those that really are well educated have either just been fooled by the claims of the anti-vaccination movement into believing that vaccines are dangerous, or are just lying about their beliefs for reasons that are their own (usually because they don't want to admit that they are wrong).
If pictures like this were truly honest they would contain a disclaimer at the bottom that says either "all the information about vaccines that we get comes from websites that promote subjects that are considered to be pseudoscience and/or conspiracy theories" or "all information we get about vaccines are from sources that are not considered to be legitimate medical and/or scientific sources" or "it is against professional medical and scientific opinions that a person should not vaccinate their children, as well as may be in violation of the law in some areas" or perhaps even "many scientists consider this picture to be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and should be ignored and disregarded".
Regardless of what disclaimer should be placed on an anti-vaccination picture such as this one (or any anti-vaccination picture for that matter) it does show the arrogance within the anti-vaccination movement in that they regard themselves as being intelligent and well educated when it comes to vaccines, when in reality it is often the exact opposite, and that they actually don't know anything about vaccines and simply blindly follow some quack that poses as a doctor or as a medical expert that goes around claiming that vaccines are dangerous and can create all of these health issues in children rather than actually prevent health issues.
Perhaps one more type of disclaimer that should also be included with such a picture should say "all information we have regarding the dangers of vaccines have been discredited by legitimate scientific and medical institutions, or have been shown to be fraudulent."
Thursday, November 21, 2013
The Death of Sylvia Browne
Yesterday one of the world's most famous fake psychics (I know, that's redundant) died.
Sylvia Browne, who had made many appearances on TV (most notably The Montel Williams Show and Larry King Live) died yesterday at the age of 77 (she had predicted should would die at age 88).
Now being a skeptic and someone whom believes that all psychics are frauds (apart form those that are mentally ill and really do believe that they have psychic powers) many people might assume that I am rejoicing, and perhaps even celebrating her death (especially those who believe that people can have psychic powers, or just people who don't like skeptics).
To be quiet honest I'm not sure how I should feel about her death, because there are just so many feelings I have about it that I can't seem to focus on one to just go with.
On the one hand I am sort of glad that she's gone because now she can no longer hurt people and mess with their emotions with her stage magician like "readings" while at the same time exploiting those people for fame and money.
On the other hand I'm also a bit angry, not only because of her exploitation that she basically got away with up until she died, but also because she would never would come clean about being a fake, despite the numerous failed readings and predictions she has had. Now that she's dead, she never will.
Yet on the other hand I also feel a tad bit sad for her, not only because she died having many people despise her, but also because she is leaving behind family, friends, and fans who all loved her and will miss her greatly, as well as got some inspiration from her.
Yet still I also feel a tad bit ashamed as well for being glad, and anger, and sad that she's gone.
I do infact feel ashamed for being sort of happy that she is gone, because despite the fact that she did exploit people for fame and money, I don't believe she was a truly evil person, plus you really shouldn't be happy that someone has died anyways.
I also feel ashamed for being angry that she's dead, because while she never did stop or ever come clean about her "powers" I also know that she'll never be able to hurt anyone again, and that I should let any anger for her go.
Yet I also feel ashamed for feeling sad about her death because despite the fact that she will be missed by many people, she also hurt a lot of people, and so therefore it might not be appropriate to feel sad about her death.
In the end I think it might be best that the only appropriate emotion to feel about here death is to feel no emotion at all about her death, and to let her fade from memory.
Sylvia Browne, who had made many appearances on TV (most notably The Montel Williams Show and Larry King Live) died yesterday at the age of 77 (she had predicted should would die at age 88).
Now being a skeptic and someone whom believes that all psychics are frauds (apart form those that are mentally ill and really do believe that they have psychic powers) many people might assume that I am rejoicing, and perhaps even celebrating her death (especially those who believe that people can have psychic powers, or just people who don't like skeptics).
To be quiet honest I'm not sure how I should feel about her death, because there are just so many feelings I have about it that I can't seem to focus on one to just go with.
On the one hand I am sort of glad that she's gone because now she can no longer hurt people and mess with their emotions with her stage magician like "readings" while at the same time exploiting those people for fame and money.
On the other hand I'm also a bit angry, not only because of her exploitation that she basically got away with up until she died, but also because she would never would come clean about being a fake, despite the numerous failed readings and predictions she has had. Now that she's dead, she never will.
Yet on the other hand I also feel a tad bit sad for her, not only because she died having many people despise her, but also because she is leaving behind family, friends, and fans who all loved her and will miss her greatly, as well as got some inspiration from her.
Yet still I also feel a tad bit ashamed as well for being glad, and anger, and sad that she's gone.
I do infact feel ashamed for being sort of happy that she is gone, because despite the fact that she did exploit people for fame and money, I don't believe she was a truly evil person, plus you really shouldn't be happy that someone has died anyways.
I also feel ashamed for being angry that she's dead, because while she never did stop or ever come clean about her "powers" I also know that she'll never be able to hurt anyone again, and that I should let any anger for her go.
Yet I also feel ashamed for feeling sad about her death because despite the fact that she will be missed by many people, she also hurt a lot of people, and so therefore it might not be appropriate to feel sad about her death.
In the end I think it might be best that the only appropriate emotion to feel about here death is to feel no emotion at all about her death, and to let her fade from memory.
Help stop DMCA abuse and homophobia at the same time
Today I found out that former U.S. Navy chaplain turned far right fundamentalist Christian and notorious homophobic, Gordon "Dr. Chaps" Klingenschmitt, manged to get Right Wing Watch's Youtube account suspended after filing a series of bogus copyright claims (I.E. a DMCA attack) because the page hosted several one to two minute video clips showcasing his blatant bigotry.
This is the second time this has happen in the past two weeks (read about it here, here, here, and here) and despite already having restored it once after RWW filed a counter claim that clearly demonstrated that they do infact have every right to use those video clips under the FAIR USE Act (not to mention the 1st Amendment, which also allows Mr. Klingenschmitt to continue to spread his hate speech, as well as allows me and RWW to call it hate speech), Youtube decided to side with "Dr. Chaps" and took down the page again.
Youtube is ofcourse notorious for taking down both videos and entire pages after someone files a false DMCA claim, and not even doing any investigation into the claim to see if there is any validity to the claim (as is the case here). The way that Youtube handles these DMCA claims basically allows most people to get away with suppressing information about a group, or a single person, or themselves, that puts them in a bad light (again, as in the case here). That, or it's used as a form of information gathering because Youtube requires a user to send a certain amount of personnel information that would be made available to the person filing the DMCA claim to begin the counter claim process.
This type of abusive behavior needs to stopped, and it can be stopped, and here are a couple of ways you can do that:
First, you can go to Youtube's Twitter page and tell them to restore Right Wing Watch's account and to revise there takedown policy to keep abuse like this from happening (go here to ask them).
Second (and the one that I most recommend), you can sign a petition started by Right Wing Watch and it's parent group, People For the American Way, asking Youtube to restore RWW's account, and to stop abuse of it's own takedown policies (go here to sign the petition).
This in my opinion is just another example of why the DMCA needs either a heavy overhaul, or needs to be repelled entirely and replaced with something much better, and also what lengths that a homophobic bigot will go to (or really anyone with a extremist and/or harmful agenda) inorder to suppress criticism not only of themselves, but also what they claim to believe in.
This is the second time this has happen in the past two weeks (read about it here, here, here, and here) and despite already having restored it once after RWW filed a counter claim that clearly demonstrated that they do infact have every right to use those video clips under the FAIR USE Act (not to mention the 1st Amendment, which also allows Mr. Klingenschmitt to continue to spread his hate speech, as well as allows me and RWW to call it hate speech), Youtube decided to side with "Dr. Chaps" and took down the page again.
Youtube is ofcourse notorious for taking down both videos and entire pages after someone files a false DMCA claim, and not even doing any investigation into the claim to see if there is any validity to the claim (as is the case here). The way that Youtube handles these DMCA claims basically allows most people to get away with suppressing information about a group, or a single person, or themselves, that puts them in a bad light (again, as in the case here). That, or it's used as a form of information gathering because Youtube requires a user to send a certain amount of personnel information that would be made available to the person filing the DMCA claim to begin the counter claim process.
This type of abusive behavior needs to stopped, and it can be stopped, and here are a couple of ways you can do that:
First, you can go to Youtube's Twitter page and tell them to restore Right Wing Watch's account and to revise there takedown policy to keep abuse like this from happening (go here to ask them).
Second (and the one that I most recommend), you can sign a petition started by Right Wing Watch and it's parent group, People For the American Way, asking Youtube to restore RWW's account, and to stop abuse of it's own takedown policies (go here to sign the petition).
This in my opinion is just another example of why the DMCA needs either a heavy overhaul, or needs to be repelled entirely and replaced with something much better, and also what lengths that a homophobic bigot will go to (or really anyone with a extremist and/or harmful agenda) inorder to suppress criticism not only of themselves, but also what they claim to believe in.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Frankenbull: GMOs run amuck, or a deception of the Anti-GMO movement
Recently I saw an article on a conspiracy theorist website concerning what they claimed was a genetically modified bull called the Belgian Blue (read the article here).
As you can clearly see that is one right big bull (although most bovine species do tend to be big creatures) and looks like a result direct genetic manipulation. Also, the way the article is worded (and the fact that the title of the article is "FRANKENBULL: GIGANTIC GMO BULLS Are Now A REALITY") makes it sound like the species was only recently developed, and that is was the result of direct genetic manipulation. This is not true for either one.
While the species is the result of a kind of genetic manipulation, it is not however the result direct genetic manipulation (which involves directly manipulating a life form's DNA) but instead indirect genetic manipulation through the use of selective breeding.
Infact the breed itself was first identified in the early 19th century, and the modern beef breed was developed in the 1950's through the use of artificial insemination. So it is not a new breed, and was not developed by messing with it's DNA (which is technology that scientists did not have back then). The article ofcourse doesn't mention any of this.
Heck, one of the photos in the article is also clearly not a modern photo either, and appears to be from atleast from either the 50's or the 60's:
Now by the standards of the Anti-GMO movement this freakish looking bovine is not a GMO animal because it's genetic manipulation is not the result of manipulating it's DNA, but the result of genetic manipulation through selective breeding (which almost all other species of domesticated plants and animals that are used for food are the result of in one form or another) and by their standards is okay to eat (which apparently it is).
The article is clearly being deceptive, and was only posted inorder to scare people away from GMO foods by making it appear that if scientists are willing to create something like that through direct genetic manipulation, then who knows what they are willing and able to do with the rest of our food. Infact you'd pretty much have live off the land and eat nothing but wild plants and animals inorder to have a diet that consisted of no foods that are the result of genetic manipulation of one form or another.
If the anti-GMO movement is so blatantly willing to lie about something like this that was so easy to find the truth about and debunk, then who knows what else they're willing to lie about inorder to make GMO foods look dangerous?
As you can clearly see that is one right big bull (although most bovine species do tend to be big creatures) and looks like a result direct genetic manipulation. Also, the way the article is worded (and the fact that the title of the article is "FRANKENBULL: GIGANTIC GMO BULLS Are Now A REALITY") makes it sound like the species was only recently developed, and that is was the result of direct genetic manipulation. This is not true for either one.
While the species is the result of a kind of genetic manipulation, it is not however the result direct genetic manipulation (which involves directly manipulating a life form's DNA) but instead indirect genetic manipulation through the use of selective breeding.
Infact the breed itself was first identified in the early 19th century, and the modern beef breed was developed in the 1950's through the use of artificial insemination. So it is not a new breed, and was not developed by messing with it's DNA (which is technology that scientists did not have back then). The article ofcourse doesn't mention any of this.
Heck, one of the photos in the article is also clearly not a modern photo either, and appears to be from atleast from either the 50's or the 60's:
Now by the standards of the Anti-GMO movement this freakish looking bovine is not a GMO animal because it's genetic manipulation is not the result of manipulating it's DNA, but the result of genetic manipulation through selective breeding (which almost all other species of domesticated plants and animals that are used for food are the result of in one form or another) and by their standards is okay to eat (which apparently it is).
The article is clearly being deceptive, and was only posted inorder to scare people away from GMO foods by making it appear that if scientists are willing to create something like that through direct genetic manipulation, then who knows what they are willing and able to do with the rest of our food. Infact you'd pretty much have live off the land and eat nothing but wild plants and animals inorder to have a diet that consisted of no foods that are the result of genetic manipulation of one form or another.
If the anti-GMO movement is so blatantly willing to lie about something like this that was so easy to find the truth about and debunk, then who knows what else they're willing to lie about inorder to make GMO foods look dangerous?
Sunday, November 10, 2013
9 Reasons why people use Alternative Medicine
Why do some people continue to used alternative medicine?
Despite all the information there is about alternative medicine and how not only does it not work, but that infact it can even be harmful, people still use it and believe that it really does work.
So why is it that people still use alternative medicine? Well, I've been thinking about that, and I've come up with quite a few reasons why:
Desperation
Science based medicine is an incredible thing and can cure many diseases and fix a lot of things that can go wrong with the human body, but unfortunately it can't cure every disease, or fix everything that goes wrong with our bodies (not yet atleast). So when science based medicine can't fix or cure what ever is wrong with us (or atleast not doing so in a way that is fast enough for us) some people, even rational people, might become desperate enough to use alternative medicine.
This sort of situation especially happens when someone has a terminal disease and they are told by their doctor that there is nothing they can do to cure what ever it is that is killing them. Some people will not accept this and will seek out anything that is claimed to be able to cure them (even if all the evidence says otherwise).
They think it's cheaper
Because alternative medicine isn't manufactured by the pharmaceutical companies (who are for profit businesses) it is assumed by some people that alternative medicine must be cheaper than science based medicine because they believe that the people who are manufacturing these alternative medical products are not doing it for a profit, plus when a person is told about a product that is suppose to be cheaper and work better than the conventional product, people tend to buy the supposedly cheaper product.
Now if you seriously believe that alternative medicine is cheaper than science based medicine, and that people who make these alternative medical products are not doing so for a profit, then I know a Nigerian prince that wants to give you $15,000,000.
A friend told them it works
Probably the best form of advertising there is is word of mouth. You don't do have to pay for anything, and people tend to trust the opinion of a friend or family member over a creative ad in a newspaper or a TV commercial. Same thing holds true with alternative medicine.
Lets say you've been sick for a while and you have been taking some medicine for what ever has been ailing you, but so far it has had little to no affect. You tell a friend or a family member about your health issues and they might recommend that you take some herbs, or to go see this "doctor" that they recommend (who turns out to be an alternative medicine practitioner and not a real doctor) because they claim that it helped them, or it helped someone they know. Because you trust the person whom is recommending this "doctor" or this product, you might be more willing to see this "doctor" or try this product than you would if some stranger had told you.
Science based medicine can be harsh
Science based medicine (or modern medicine, or real medicine as some people like to call it) is a great thing. It has cured a lot of stuff, and has extended our average life expectancy by years, but it can also be pretty harsh at times as well. Because of this some people might either choose to stop using a science based medical treatment because they feel that it has become to harsh on them and that they believe that it might kill them if they continue to use, and so they decided to use alternative medicine instead because they believe it will help them without any side effects, or they might already know (or atleast believe) that the medical treatment that they've been recommend that they do could or will be harsh on them, and they decide to forgo it and use alternative medicine instead.
It goes with their beliefs
Whether is be religious, or cultural, or even personal, our beliefs in whatever form it may be shapes our thinking and what we do and what we trust, and if there is something about an alternative medicine that appeals to a person's beliefs, or if there is something about science based medicine that person considers taboo, the person might be far more willing to use alternative medicine even when it clearly doesn't work and that science based medicine clearly does work.
They believe that science based medicine is dangerous
Some people might chose to use alternative medicine rather than science based medicine not simply because they believe it is better than science based medicine, but because they believe that science based medicine is actually dangerous.
It shouldn't be to surprising that many supporters of alternative medicine also tend to be conspiracy theorists who believe that pharmaceutical companies are greedy and are only putting out products to make money without care of whether or not a product is dangerous, or intentionally putting out a product that will make us sick so that they can make more money off of us that way, or are part of some "New World Order" and are putting out dangerous products as a way to either control us or slowly kill us.
It should also not be surprising that many people who believe such conspiracy theories also believe that pharmaceutical companies are also trying to suppress information about alternative medicine, and are even going so far as to try to outlaw alternative medicine. Because of this belief it can make many people believe that alternative medicine is not only the right choice, but the only choice.
They used alternative medicine before and believed that it worked
One of the main reasons why some people use alternative medicine is because they already used it before for something else and as far as they are concerned it worked.
Now the two biggest reasons why someone might think that alternative medicine actually works after they already used it and it appeared to cure what ever was ailing them is either because they took it along with the real science based medicine and they simply assumed that the alternative medicine either helped cure them, or was what really cured them. Or they might not have used any science based medicine and that their body simply healed itself, but because that they used alternative medicine they assume that it was the alternative medicine that healed them and not their own bodies.
Because some people who have taken alternative medicine and believe that it really did work they might forgo using any science based medicine and use only alternative medicine, or atleast continue to use it along with science based medicine.
They read information about it that makes them think it works
There are a lot of websites and books out there about alternative medicine and it's alleged "benefits". Many of these books and websites contain "information" mostly in the form of positive stories about alternative medicine and how it's "helped" certain people by telling you their stories of how it's supposedly cured them while at the the same time bad mouthing science based medicine by claiming it wasn't working, or that it was killing the person, or by putting in information that makes science based medicine look harmful, or just insert a bunch of pharmaceutical industry conspiracy theories.
Sometimes these books and websites will take it a step further and have a real doctor claim that some kind of alternative medicine really works, or perhaps the book was written by a real doctor, or the website is run by a real doctor, and because something is written or run by a real doctor, it might cause some people to believe that there is something to this alternative medicine.
They got scammed into it.
Despite all that we've learned from snake oil salesmen of the 19th century, people still get scammed by con-artists and quacks who get people to buy useless products because they have been lead to believe that said product works and will cure what ever is ailing them when all it is is really junk.
Be either through an ad on the internet, or directly from the mouth of the person selling what ever they are selling, people to this day still get suckered into buying stuff that does not work. The fact that alternative medicine even exists today and that there are companies that manufacture and make billions off of this stuff is proof of that.
Despite all the information there is about alternative medicine and how not only does it not work, but that infact it can even be harmful, people still use it and believe that it really does work.
So why is it that people still use alternative medicine? Well, I've been thinking about that, and I've come up with quite a few reasons why:
Desperation
Science based medicine is an incredible thing and can cure many diseases and fix a lot of things that can go wrong with the human body, but unfortunately it can't cure every disease, or fix everything that goes wrong with our bodies (not yet atleast). So when science based medicine can't fix or cure what ever is wrong with us (or atleast not doing so in a way that is fast enough for us) some people, even rational people, might become desperate enough to use alternative medicine.
This sort of situation especially happens when someone has a terminal disease and they are told by their doctor that there is nothing they can do to cure what ever it is that is killing them. Some people will not accept this and will seek out anything that is claimed to be able to cure them (even if all the evidence says otherwise).
They think it's cheaper
Because alternative medicine isn't manufactured by the pharmaceutical companies (who are for profit businesses) it is assumed by some people that alternative medicine must be cheaper than science based medicine because they believe that the people who are manufacturing these alternative medical products are not doing it for a profit, plus when a person is told about a product that is suppose to be cheaper and work better than the conventional product, people tend to buy the supposedly cheaper product.
Now if you seriously believe that alternative medicine is cheaper than science based medicine, and that people who make these alternative medical products are not doing so for a profit, then I know a Nigerian prince that wants to give you $15,000,000.
A friend told them it works
Probably the best form of advertising there is is word of mouth. You don't do have to pay for anything, and people tend to trust the opinion of a friend or family member over a creative ad in a newspaper or a TV commercial. Same thing holds true with alternative medicine.
Lets say you've been sick for a while and you have been taking some medicine for what ever has been ailing you, but so far it has had little to no affect. You tell a friend or a family member about your health issues and they might recommend that you take some herbs, or to go see this "doctor" that they recommend (who turns out to be an alternative medicine practitioner and not a real doctor) because they claim that it helped them, or it helped someone they know. Because you trust the person whom is recommending this "doctor" or this product, you might be more willing to see this "doctor" or try this product than you would if some stranger had told you.
Science based medicine can be harsh
Science based medicine (or modern medicine, or real medicine as some people like to call it) is a great thing. It has cured a lot of stuff, and has extended our average life expectancy by years, but it can also be pretty harsh at times as well. Because of this some people might either choose to stop using a science based medical treatment because they feel that it has become to harsh on them and that they believe that it might kill them if they continue to use, and so they decided to use alternative medicine instead because they believe it will help them without any side effects, or they might already know (or atleast believe) that the medical treatment that they've been recommend that they do could or will be harsh on them, and they decide to forgo it and use alternative medicine instead.
It goes with their beliefs
Whether is be religious, or cultural, or even personal, our beliefs in whatever form it may be shapes our thinking and what we do and what we trust, and if there is something about an alternative medicine that appeals to a person's beliefs, or if there is something about science based medicine that person considers taboo, the person might be far more willing to use alternative medicine even when it clearly doesn't work and that science based medicine clearly does work.
They believe that science based medicine is dangerous
Some people might chose to use alternative medicine rather than science based medicine not simply because they believe it is better than science based medicine, but because they believe that science based medicine is actually dangerous.
It shouldn't be to surprising that many supporters of alternative medicine also tend to be conspiracy theorists who believe that pharmaceutical companies are greedy and are only putting out products to make money without care of whether or not a product is dangerous, or intentionally putting out a product that will make us sick so that they can make more money off of us that way, or are part of some "New World Order" and are putting out dangerous products as a way to either control us or slowly kill us.
It should also not be surprising that many people who believe such conspiracy theories also believe that pharmaceutical companies are also trying to suppress information about alternative medicine, and are even going so far as to try to outlaw alternative medicine. Because of this belief it can make many people believe that alternative medicine is not only the right choice, but the only choice.
They used alternative medicine before and believed that it worked
One of the main reasons why some people use alternative medicine is because they already used it before for something else and as far as they are concerned it worked.
Now the two biggest reasons why someone might think that alternative medicine actually works after they already used it and it appeared to cure what ever was ailing them is either because they took it along with the real science based medicine and they simply assumed that the alternative medicine either helped cure them, or was what really cured them. Or they might not have used any science based medicine and that their body simply healed itself, but because that they used alternative medicine they assume that it was the alternative medicine that healed them and not their own bodies.
Because some people who have taken alternative medicine and believe that it really did work they might forgo using any science based medicine and use only alternative medicine, or atleast continue to use it along with science based medicine.
They read information about it that makes them think it works
There are a lot of websites and books out there about alternative medicine and it's alleged "benefits". Many of these books and websites contain "information" mostly in the form of positive stories about alternative medicine and how it's "helped" certain people by telling you their stories of how it's supposedly cured them while at the the same time bad mouthing science based medicine by claiming it wasn't working, or that it was killing the person, or by putting in information that makes science based medicine look harmful, or just insert a bunch of pharmaceutical industry conspiracy theories.
Sometimes these books and websites will take it a step further and have a real doctor claim that some kind of alternative medicine really works, or perhaps the book was written by a real doctor, or the website is run by a real doctor, and because something is written or run by a real doctor, it might cause some people to believe that there is something to this alternative medicine.
They got scammed into it.
Despite all that we've learned from snake oil salesmen of the 19th century, people still get scammed by con-artists and quacks who get people to buy useless products because they have been lead to believe that said product works and will cure what ever is ailing them when all it is is really junk.
Be either through an ad on the internet, or directly from the mouth of the person selling what ever they are selling, people to this day still get suckered into buying stuff that does not work. The fact that alternative medicine even exists today and that there are companies that manufacture and make billions off of this stuff is proof of that.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
5 Things I've noticed about... Conspiracy Theorists on Youtube
If you're someone that makes a hobby of investigating conspiracy theories, you will eventually be lead to one place: Youtube.
Youtube seems to the gathering center conspiracy theorists on the internet due to the huge amount a conspiracy theory videos on that website (and I mean huge).
Now there are a lot of things that I have noticed about conspiracy theorists on Youtube that I could talk about, but I have narrowed it down to five different things.
So here are five things that I've noticed about conspiracy theorists on Youtube:
5. They can come up with some pretty bizarre conspiracy theories.
If you want to find a really bizarre conspiracy theory, then there is no better place to look than Youtube, because the conspiracy theorists on that website can come up with some very bizarre conspiracy theories. In fact some of the weirdest conspiracy theories that I have ever heard of are from videos on Youtube.
These conspiracy theories on Youtube can get so strange, and combined with a person's own behavior either in a video, or in the comments section, that it makes one wonder if that person is either a poe, or a fraud that is looking for attention (or to scam people), or severely mentally ill. In fact some conspiracy theorist on Youtube have been proven to be either mentally ill or frauds.
Some of these videos are so bizarre that I've had to stop watching them at times because I felt that it was driving me crazy (mostly rage) and making me want to destroy my computer in frustration over not only how some one could come up with some thing that crazy and stupid, but also in frustration over why Youtube would allow such a video to stay on the website.
If such videos make me nearly go crazy then I can't imagine what they do to people who take these videos seriously.
4. Their videos can be extremely long.
Sometimes a conspiracy theorist's video on Youtube can be short, sometimes they can be half an hour long, and sometimes they can go on for hours and hours.
Some of the longest videos that I have ever seen on Youtube have been from conspiracy theorists, and I'm not talking about an hour or two long. Some of these videos can be three to four to six hours long. In fact I think the longest one I have ever seen (I didn't actually watch it, I just noted the time) was forty hours long!
The only way someone could watch such videos is if they were unemployed and/or had no life what so ever. They would have to spend all of their time infront of a computer watching these poorly made and researched Youtube videos which would become essentially their only source of information about the world...
Besides just making abnormally long videos, conspiracy theorists on Youtube also tend to do this:
3. They create videos of an event quickly after an event happens.
Thanks mostly due to cheap (many times free), widely available, and easy to use video capturing and editing software, conspiracy theorist can now create videos at astonishingly amazing speeds after some event happens, sometimes even within hours of an event happening.
Usually these videos are pretty short, as well as poorly made and edited, but give them a few days and they will create a far longer conspiracy theory video about that event... that will still be poorly made and edited.
In fact this seems to be a pattern with many conspiracy theorists videos on Youtube, because...
2. They're videos tend to be poorly made and edited.
Some of conspiracy theorist's videos on Youtube are just unwatchable, and it's not just because of the length, or subject matter, or lack of any evidence presented within them when a conspiracy theorist tries to make their case about a conspiracy theory that they claim is real, but because they are just horrible videos to begin with.
Many of the videos are made are just very poorly done, and the editing and placement of segments and commentary within them is just horrible at times and appears to be just thrown together. The commentary alone in these videos are often not well thought out, and many times is just incoherent and often times makes many contradictions, and for the most part makes no sense what so ever.
Kind of sounds like a conspiracy theorist is general rather than just the ones on Youtube.
1. They don't like "non-believers".
Most conspiracy theorists in general do not like people who don't believe them and doubt the conspiracy theories that they are promoting are real, but on Youtube they take it to a different level entirely.
Many of them are just rude and very hostile towards anyone questions them. They down vote comments they don't like and mark them as spam in hopes of hiding the comments that have offended them. They false flag videos they don't like (mostly debunking videos) and outright threaten people who post debunking videos or comments expressing doubt in a conspiracy theory.
That's just the ones who mainly post comments.
The ones who post videos on the other hand might do all of that as well, plus they might just delete your comments from their own pages, and block you.
Kind of shows how open minded they are, doesn't it.
Youtube seems to the gathering center conspiracy theorists on the internet due to the huge amount a conspiracy theory videos on that website (and I mean huge).
Now there are a lot of things that I have noticed about conspiracy theorists on Youtube that I could talk about, but I have narrowed it down to five different things.
So here are five things that I've noticed about conspiracy theorists on Youtube:
5. They can come up with some pretty bizarre conspiracy theories.
If you want to find a really bizarre conspiracy theory, then there is no better place to look than Youtube, because the conspiracy theorists on that website can come up with some very bizarre conspiracy theories. In fact some of the weirdest conspiracy theories that I have ever heard of are from videos on Youtube.
These conspiracy theories on Youtube can get so strange, and combined with a person's own behavior either in a video, or in the comments section, that it makes one wonder if that person is either a poe, or a fraud that is looking for attention (or to scam people), or severely mentally ill. In fact some conspiracy theorist on Youtube have been proven to be either mentally ill or frauds.
Some of these videos are so bizarre that I've had to stop watching them at times because I felt that it was driving me crazy (mostly rage) and making me want to destroy my computer in frustration over not only how some one could come up with some thing that crazy and stupid, but also in frustration over why Youtube would allow such a video to stay on the website.
If such videos make me nearly go crazy then I can't imagine what they do to people who take these videos seriously.
4. Their videos can be extremely long.
Sometimes a conspiracy theorist's video on Youtube can be short, sometimes they can be half an hour long, and sometimes they can go on for hours and hours.
Some of the longest videos that I have ever seen on Youtube have been from conspiracy theorists, and I'm not talking about an hour or two long. Some of these videos can be three to four to six hours long. In fact I think the longest one I have ever seen (I didn't actually watch it, I just noted the time) was forty hours long!
The only way someone could watch such videos is if they were unemployed and/or had no life what so ever. They would have to spend all of their time infront of a computer watching these poorly made and researched Youtube videos which would become essentially their only source of information about the world...
Besides just making abnormally long videos, conspiracy theorists on Youtube also tend to do this:
3. They create videos of an event quickly after an event happens.
Thanks mostly due to cheap (many times free), widely available, and easy to use video capturing and editing software, conspiracy theorist can now create videos at astonishingly amazing speeds after some event happens, sometimes even within hours of an event happening.
Usually these videos are pretty short, as well as poorly made and edited, but give them a few days and they will create a far longer conspiracy theory video about that event... that will still be poorly made and edited.
In fact this seems to be a pattern with many conspiracy theorists videos on Youtube, because...
2. They're videos tend to be poorly made and edited.
Some of conspiracy theorist's videos on Youtube are just unwatchable, and it's not just because of the length, or subject matter, or lack of any evidence presented within them when a conspiracy theorist tries to make their case about a conspiracy theory that they claim is real, but because they are just horrible videos to begin with.
Many of the videos are made are just very poorly done, and the editing and placement of segments and commentary within them is just horrible at times and appears to be just thrown together. The commentary alone in these videos are often not well thought out, and many times is just incoherent and often times makes many contradictions, and for the most part makes no sense what so ever.
Kind of sounds like a conspiracy theorist is general rather than just the ones on Youtube.
1. They don't like "non-believers".
Most conspiracy theorists in general do not like people who don't believe them and doubt the conspiracy theories that they are promoting are real, but on Youtube they take it to a different level entirely.
Many of them are just rude and very hostile towards anyone questions them. They down vote comments they don't like and mark them as spam in hopes of hiding the comments that have offended them. They false flag videos they don't like (mostly debunking videos) and outright threaten people who post debunking videos or comments expressing doubt in a conspiracy theory.
That's just the ones who mainly post comments.
The ones who post videos on the other hand might do all of that as well, plus they might just delete your comments from their own pages, and block you.
Kind of shows how open minded they are, doesn't it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)