The Irish and their "new" Medievil law,,,,,

In support of the abolition of this crazy way of thinking I am republishing my favorite quotes from the Atheist Ireland website, the rest of the full 25 quotes can be found HERE 

This is the most backward thinking idea to have ever hit a modern country; in fact I am so bemused by it I can only think that its leaders do not want to live in this modern world and wish to drag their constituents back into the dark ages.  Maybe when the dust settles they will see the size of their error and revoke this idiotic law, but I hope in the mean time no big corporations use it as an excuse to get the flock out of there and damage its already wobbly economy.

Anyway, on with the quotes :

George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”

Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

Homeo-phobic musings..........

Well, I woke up, tuned in early to make sure I had a connection and settled back to watch as the homeopathic top dogs crumbled under the barrage of evidence. The live streamed House of Commons Science and Technology sub-Committee’s question and answer session on the 25th of this month was as I expected it to be. Scientifically based responses from the supporters were non-existent and Dr Ben Goldacre, Edzard Ernst and Tracey Brown were like Man Utd. playing in the park on a Sunday against a bunch of school kids. So bad were the answers given in response to questions raised by the committee that I was forced to read the Guardians comments arriving on their Science Blog rather than look at the faces of the stuttering defenders of this sham that is homeopathy.    




What was most memorable about the whole days homeo bashing was not the contents of the video of the session its self, but rather interestingly the stubborn defence of homeopathy that continued to drip in for the rest of the day on the aforementioned comments. Mostly based on anecdotal evidence, ranging from a South African guy who's dog managed a leap up on to the sofa after being given some "memorised water" to a rather spirited attempt by a young lad who's father had been brought back from the brink after years of conventional treatment only to miraculously recover after some quack remedy. Like I say mostly anecdotal and the arguments kept coming. Nothing the sane and enlightened amongst the commenter’s could say would sway these people and their steadfast beliefs. This got me to thinking about something I have suspected for a long time. Once a person has stepped onto the pseudo band wagon, it’s VERY hard to get them to even consider that they may not be doing the right thing. I suppose it has a lot to do with human nature. The same is not generally true of the skeptics I find, although we have our zealots too. All we want is to be shown hard evidence. Show me and I am converted. I can see how it works from the other side though, after all I have kids and they do it all the time. Picture this:

Son : "I am so into xxxxxxx. they’re great and are bound to be around for years and years. I think I am gonna have their name tattooed on my forehead."

Dad: "That’s a really bad idea, apart from ruining your looks and making your self look foolish, history tells us that most bands don't make it past a couple of years and your opinion of them could change."

Son: "That’s never gonna happen, these guys are great."

Dad: "……..it’s a bad idea, the past has shown...."

Son: "What do you know, you don't even listen to `em"

Dad: "I am just saying that ......."



And so on and so on...... The kid is not going change his mind on the say so of his “square” old man. And so it is with people who have had the use of a homeopathic "drug". If they don't kick it in to touch when it doesn't work first time they are going to believe it has worked forever. That their bruising or rash can go away on its own won’t even come into it, nor will they ever see this as a coincidence if the homeopathic route was taken. Once the ego has "set" it’s very hard to change back. It takes a strong mind and the ability to show you made a mistake and that’s not easy for anyone to do. If it was, divorce and marriage guidance councilors would have no need to exist because we would all be able to see our own faults and apologise and change our behavior accordingly.



The motivation behind the scientific and corporate minds defending homeopathy at the Home Office party last week have another agenda, of course, driven by another ugly human trait. Greed, plain and simple. What worries me though is not that they are making money but that the arguments for the efficacy of the treatments just do not stand up to any form of scrutiny at all and they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this. Contradictions were flying all over the place and so much waffle and stuttering going on it was like catching a kid red handed with his hand in the cookie jar. I am happy to believe in homeopathy if you can just show me it works. Just show me, that’s it. Clear up a random rash and let me see the results, repeat the exercise again with a further random sample and then again with another. Do it over and over, until there can be no doubt that this works, the same way as the big pharmaceuticals have to do it. Bringing a drug to market is a long process and a very costly one at that. Why these charlatans should get away with this scam is way off the scale of normal rationally working minds. I think it should be stopped in its tracks.

Never mind that its supposedly harmless –( what the hell point is there in a harmless drug, by the way), the facts are that it’s not. Australia found out recently the hard way with the death of a 9 month old baby girl who was killed by her parents withholding conventional medicine in favor of homeopathic drops to cure eczema. Well, it didn’t cure her, it killed the poor mite. Now you know why I can’t believe in it. There was a perfectly random rash to be cleared up and HOMEOPATHY COULDN’T DO IT. Do us all a favor, spare Boots the chemist any more “Ratner” moments and don’t allow any more people to die needlessly. It’s the end 2009, it’s about time we let go of this ancient and useless rubbish and let science, with all its faults, free to get on with the job of curing us of our ails.

When your heroes let you down.

So far in my forays into the world of skepticism and science based reasoning, I have come across many things I would like to write about.  Future topics will include, I hope,  space exploration and its value to human kind.  Something where science is actually making a difference to human living.  Some of the experiments being undertaken outside of the constraints of the earth's gravity will impact on us as humans directly.  The Urugan experiment is establishing an permanent hurricane and natural disaster monitoring station aboard the ISS which will actively monitor areas at risk in real time and provide "eye in the sky" feed back to those on the ground so that loss of life can maybe be limited at least, if not altogether avoided.  Science is working in real situations that we can see benefits for and because of the scale of it, although relatively small physically, the fact that it is a truley international affair with input from the US, Russia, Canada, Japan and the European Space Agencies and recently Brazil.   


Whilst the ISS is getting on with things with little opposition, complaints have mostly been about colossal budgetary deficits and the inability of Russia to deliver a module or two here and there, other areas of science continue to battle wild accusations and exaggerated claims while they get on with the same business of saving lives and improving survival rates of vulnerable children in areas where it is difficult to grow crops.   Unfortunately I am talking about Greenpeace's stance on Genetically Modified crops.  To quote the UK head, Lord Melchet, when asked if Greenpeace's stance would relax subject to further scientific research and improved procedures, his reply was - " It (Greenpeace's view) is a permanent and definite and complete opposition (to GM Organisms) based on a view that there will always be major uncertainties. It is the nature of the technology, indeed it is the nature of science, that there will not be any absolute proof".  Disappointing to say the least.   I wonder if any Greenpeace supporters with, or who have children with severe nut allergies will stick by them should the GM hypo-allergenic peanut become a reality.




I won't go into the intricacies of GM food production because it is neither my place nor do I completely understand the specific science.  But I do know that we have effectively being doing it for hundreds of years by cross breeding plants and there is no man eating triffid that I know of.  Seriously, there are legitimate claims and concerns regarding modern agriculture, but I have to say I am satisfied that the world has in place a stringent enough regulatory system to deal with it.  Apart from the potential amount of lives that could be saved, thousands of tonnes of herbicides are NOT being used.  

It seems that Greenpeace have shot themselves in the foot a bit here. Having such an inflexible, static stance, leaving no room for new evidence to influence their campaigning seems an intrinsically weak position to argue from, leaving aside the fact that rigourous regulation of GM foods and crops IS in place already. Maybe they also buy into the organic food myth. They seem to be suscepible to a bit of woo, it wouldn't surprise me that they have persueded many to unwittingly protest against the life saving crops that can breath under water by extending a snorkel like straw up wards. How can they face themselves in the morning when they look at starvation ravaged villages. Do they think they bring comfort to those poor souls when they are screaming against GM crops dressed in a chemical suit. Scare tactics are in poor taste in this instance.



The pro's seem to outweigh the cons by a long way in my eyes.  Shame on the stubborn stance of GREENPEACE.




http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v2/n6/full/embor393.html#B15

A Real Life Story of Death by Homoeopathy (....almost)

This REALLY needs to be seen by a LOT of people - this is the real harm that is being done by the alternative medicine and homoeopathy crowd.  Please copy this and post it in as many pllaces as humanly possible.

The Lightning Process

ANOTHER jumped up pyramid scheme hidden behind a psuedo scientific nonsense.

The-Lightning-Process-Didnt-Work-For-me

At least this guy has the balls to tell all.  Well done.

Critical Thinking = Open Mind

I have been reading a lot about my new found interest in all things "Skeptical" and one thing sticks out above all else.  The importance of trying to stay open minded and keeping a cool head in the times we are confronted by an issue we don't agree with. 

Being open minded has so many advantages over closing ones ears to anything new that its fast becoming my mantra, and anybody that knows me will tell you that I have been more than a little guilty of closing the door on views opposing my own.   Imagine how much easier the world could run if everybody took the time to digest an opposing viewpoint and to think before opening ones mouth and metaphorically jerking a knee in the  groin of the person you may not have the same beliefs as.

Listening to Richard Saunders of the Australian Skeptics on the Canadian Skeptically Speaking Podcast made me think about my own tactics in dealing with people with strange (to me)  ideas about alternative therapies etc.  Richard warns us not to be confrontational and aggressive in our stance as it can weaken your position.  I pricked my ears up on hearing this as I do want to warn people as to the possible dangers of say, supporting homoeopathy, but I also want to keep some of my friends.  As he rightly points out, if a group of 5 random people you meet at a cocktail party ask you what you think of Reiki and you tell them that you think its a load of bullshit, you are going to offend at least one of them. If you argue that its a load of crap this IS going to happen.  If, however you can make your feelings clear using non confrontational terminology, you have a better chance of prolonging the conversation with all five people and thus increase the chance of one or more of them maybe having a review of their own position on the subject.  People don't like looking stupid and if you can argue without antagonising them, which generally makes them put up a kind of defence against what they perceive as an attack on them, then it has to be better, surely.

Obviously, this is not the easiest thing to do as you yourself are having your strongly held view attacked in a way so your natural instinct is to attack.  This is where the admiration level meter rises all the way to the top for me where people like Dr. Eugenie Scott, Dr. Steven Novella and Brian Dunning are concerned.  Their ability to perform under pressure is legendary.  They do have the upper hand on most of us though in that two of them are fully fledged scientists and the other more or less does the skeptic thing for a living.  Their backgrounds have armed them with a pool of knowledge that we mere mortals have to learn from scratch unless we are also scientists.  But having all of the facts at your disposal isn't a guarantee to winning an argument or getting your point across because at the end of the day, some people just plain refuse to bend when it comes to their personal woo.  If this is the case then we just have to walk away and chalk up a loss without prejudice.  If you have managed to keep cool and dignified you may also still be friends and you live to get the chance to maybe take them on again.  If you waded in with the "this is a load of crap" method, that chance is probably lost along with a certain amount of credibility and possibly at the extreme end of the scale, your friendship.

This is really grass roots stuff and I apologise for anyone reading this for whom this style of arguing is the only way to fly.  But we are not all blessed with fantastic debating skills and it is for those of us that have a voice but don't really know how to use it that I am directing this to. 
 
So here's to a new beginning for me, open government my own style, "New Marc" after many years of stuffy old me and my strange "don't start him off" views.   I throw open my mind and renounce my own attacks and bitter ranting at the things that piss me off and see if I can find that extra patience needed to change the mind of a believer,  give peace a chance and all that.  I realise I am a tiny wheel in this gigantic machine, probably only an iron filing if the truth be known, but I have aspirations to become a drop of oil and who knows, maybe a fully fledged and well lubricated cog.

Homeopathy - revisited

This is a repeat posting in the hope that it will remain an issue in the public eye.  


Homeopaths Censor Blogger
From Orac I learn that The Society of Homeopaths was successful in getting blogger The Quackometer to pull his post entitled The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing ? an expose of how homeopaths falsely claim that homeopathy can prevent and cure malaria. As Orac says:

Gee, aren't legal threats the way that the evil big pharma and conventional medicine "suppress" the "truth" of alternative medicine and homeopathy? Why is it that the Society of Homeopaths is behaving like a thug and taking advantage of vagaries of British libel law, which is notoriously weighted towards the plaintiffs [?] in order to try to suppress evidence-based articles that are not flattering to homeopathy? Notice that, instead of debating, instead of presenting arguments and evidence for why they thought Le Canard Noir was incorrect, the Society of Homeopaths tried to suppress his right to free speech by making legal threats to his ISP, which caved.

Precisely. So in the interests of free speech, and to demonstrate to the homeopaths that bullying will not work (they can still refute the article with evidence ? or they could if they had any), I will join many other bloggers (see the end of Orac?s post for the updated full list) and reproduce in full The Quackometer?s censored article. The following is what the homeopaths were frightened you would read:

The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing

By The Quackometer

The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are a shambles and a bad joke. It is now over a year since Sense about Science, Simon Singh and the BBC Newsnight programme exposed how it is common practice for high street homeopaths to tell customers that their magic pills can prevent malaria. The Society of Homeopaths have done diddly-squat to stamp out this dangerous practice apart from issue a few ambiguously weasel-worded press statements.

The SoH has a code of practice, but my feeling is that this is just a smokescreen and is widely flouted and that the Society do not care about this. If this is true, then the code of practice is nothing more than a thin veneer used to give authority and credibility to its deluded members. It does nothing more than fool the public into thinking they are dealing with a regulated professional.

As a quick test, I picked a random homeopath with a web site from the SoH register to see if they flouted a couple of important rules:

48: ? Advertising shall not contain claims of superiority. ? No advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases.

72: To avoid making claims (whether explicit or implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease.

The homeopath I picked on is called Julia Wilson and runs a practice from the Leicestershire town of Market Harborough. What I found rather shocked and angered me.

Straight away, we find that Julia M Wilson LCHE, RSHom specialises in asthma and works at a clinic that says,

Many illnesses and disease can be successfully treated using homeopathy, including arthritis, asthma, digestive disorders, emotional and behavioural difficulties, headaches, infertility, skin and sleep problems.

Well, there are a number of named diseases there to start off. She also gives a leaflet that advertises her asthma clinic. The advertising leaflet says,

Conventional medicine is at a loss when it comes to understanding the origin of allergies. ... The best that medical research can do is try to keep the symptoms under control. Homeopathy is different, it seeks to address the triggers for asthma and eczema. It is a safe, drug free approach that helps alleviate the flaring of skin and tightening of lungs...

Now, despite the usual homeopathic contradiction of claiming to treat causes not symptoms and then in the next breath saying it can alleviate symptoms, the advert is clearly in breach of the above rule 47 on advertising as it implicitly claims superiority over real medicine and names a disease.

Asthma is estimated to be responsible for 1,500 deaths and 74,000 emergency hospital admissions in the UK each year. It is not a trivial illness that sugar pills ought to be anywhere near. The Cochrane Review says the following about the evidence for asthma and homeopathy,

The review of trials found that the type of homeopathy varied between the studies, that the study designs used in the trials were varied and that no strong evidence existed that usual forms of homeopathy for asthma are effective.

This is not a surprise given that homeopathy is just a ritualised placebo. Hopefully, most parents attending this clinic will have the good sense to go to a real accident and emergency unit in the event of a severe attack and consult their GP about real management of the illness. I would hope that Julia does little harm here.

However, a little more research on her site reveals much more serious concerns. She says on her site that 'she worked in Kenya teaching homeopathy at a college in Nairobi and supporting graduates to set up their own clinics'. Now, we have seen what homeopaths do in Kenya before. It is not treating a little stress and the odd headache. Free from strong UK legislation, these missionary homeopaths make the boldest claims about the deadliest diseases.

A bit of web research shows where Julia was working (picture above). The Abha Light Foundation is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,

introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya.

I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for 'treating' various lethal diseases. Its MalariaX potion,

is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack.

This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this wicked scam recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.

Let's remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.

there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.

Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them insane nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.

Ironically, the WHO has issued a press release today on cheap ways of reducing child and adult mortality due to malaria. Their trials, conducted in Kenya, of using cheap mosquito nets soaked in insecticide have reduced child deaths by 44% over two years. It says that issuing these nets be the 'immediate priority' to governments with a malaria problem. No mention of homeopathy. These results were arrived at by careful trials and observation. Science. We now know that nets work. A lifesaving net costs $5. A bottle of useless homeopathic crap costs $4.50. Both are large amounts for a poor Kenyan, but is their life really worth the 50c saving?

I am sure we are going to hear the usual homeopath bleat that this is just a campaign by Big Pharma to discredit unpatentable homeopathic remedies. Are we to add to the conspiracy Big Net manufacturers too?

It amazes me that to add to all the list of ills and injustices that our rich nations impose on the poor of the world, we have to add the widespread export of our bourgeois and lethal healing fantasies. To make a strong point: if we can introduce laws that allow the arrest of sex tourists on their return to the UK, can we not charge people who travel to Africa to indulge their dangerous healing delusions?

At the very least, we could expect the Society of Homeopaths to try to stamp out this wicked practice? Could we?