Are You Kidding?

Well no- the skeptics dream world is unfolding as they think it should, one in which pharmaceuticals are forced on the unsuspecting population and even become mandatory. Now a “report” is stating that everyone over 50 should be on statins.

“Why EVERYONE over 50 needs to be taking statins: Cholesterol-busting pills cut risk of heart attack or stroke”

From the Mail Online.

And then the skeptics whine about the small amount it costs to fund homeopathy on the NHS when drug companies are ramping up to have hundreds of millions paid for by the government for a drug that has side effects which costs even more in taxes for the iatrogenesis it causes.

“Sell more “scientific” drugs! Sell more drugs! Stop access to alternatives!” is the cry of skeptics all over the world.

And just to make sure that everyone over 50 is on as many pharmaceuticals as possible, they are attempting to restrict access to homeopathic remedies here in the UK, Canada and elsewhere. It is time for sensible people to stand up to these totalitarian idiots. Unfortunately, they have become well funded by the very drug industry that has a vested monetary interested in their success.

As I said in the last post, skeptics want to make it illegal for you to be drug free, and seek alternatives to pharmaceutical drugs and have freedom to access homeopathic remedies and other alternatives.

Sepsis and Harm- A Study in Skeptics’ Lies, Bigotry and False Accusations

Skeptics point out the one malpractice suit against a supposed homeopath and the one death of a child from parents who did not seek conventional medical treatment for sepsis as proof that homeopathy is “harmful”. They have also accumulated a bizarre number of deaths that are in no way related to alternative health in order to prove that homeopathy is harmful.

But looking at the one death and as tragic as this event was, homeopathy still has a 200 year history of unparalleled safety and efficacy on its own.  When compared to the safety record of conventional medicine, (including manslaughter, criminal negligence by conventional medical doctors and also those prosecuted for not seeking conventional medical care even though they know nothing about alternative health) homeopathy’s record is startling good.

As well, homeopaths recommend that patients see a medical doctor and in fact, patients who see a good homeopath, get more engaged with their health and thereby seek conventional medical diagnosis and treatment. When you include India and Brazil, where homeopathy is strong, (which is why drug companies are worried) millions of people PER DAY take homeopathic remedies and to find only one problem is remarkable.

But let’s just look at sepis in the general population. I could get very clear statistics for the United States and not for here in the United Kingdom, from the National Institute of General Medical Science:

” Every year, severe sepsis strikes about 750,000 Americans1. It’s been estimated that between 28 and 50 percent of these people die—far more than the number of U.S. deaths from prostate cancer, breast cancer and AIDS combined.”

This means that up to 375,000 people per year die of sepsis in the United States alone. 375,000!

And of those 375,000, skeptics will probably claim that from their perspective it is most likely that those 375,000 never saw a medical doctor and never took a medication. Because if you go to a medical doctor with sepsis you will surely recover with no further problems according to the fallacious opinions of skeptics. They rest their case. Of course, recently in the news was a lab tech who died of some contagion while in the emergency room getting treatment, antibiotics and I’m sure amongst the 375,000 there were most likely 90 plus per cent who were receiving conventional treatment. Don’t expect logic or common sense from skeptics.

In a similar fashion, the skeptic cult has a deceptive web site set up about “what’s the harm” where they falsely blame a huge number of mortality and morbidity on homeopaths and alternative health, (over 1,300,000 and counting) . They even blame all infectious childhood outbreaks on homeopaths.

Other skeptics and even journalists link to this site or now write about the horror of alternative health. But the actual figures of real cases are one or two. Most of the numbers they have on this site are based on “what ifs” and just plain lies- it is and was the same technique that was used to blame all economic and social ills on a particular race or segment of a population.

But perhaps they just confused their figures with iatrogenesis and failure of pharmaceutical medications or medical precedures? Reasonable estimates are 200,000 to 400,000 conventional patients per year dying of iatrogenic (medically induced) disease in the United States alone. Even conservative estimates put it at 98,000 deaths from conventional medical treatments per year. Not a word or investigation of this from skeptics and even journalists writing from the skeptic view.

And like obedient mouthpieces for the pharmaceutical and medical industry there is no mention about any deaths or harm from conventional pharmaceutical drugs or treatment on their “harm” web site. Not a word. Take a drug and be safe. No, death is not possible from conventional medical treatment if you are skeptic, only fabricated ones from alternatives.

It is convenient to blame other alternative health modalities for the failings of conventional medicine, the fear consumers have of pharmaceuticals and be part of a risk management public relations strategy for drug companies.

A REALITY check is called for; context is called for; fairness is called for; tolerance is called for- but at the moment from skeptics and skeptic journalists this reasonableness is too far to go. Homeopathy has a 200 year history of unparalleled safety and efficacy.

Skeptic Groups Resorting to Suing is the Epitome of Hypocrisy and INTOLERANCE

Well, after years of watching skeptics ranting against lawyers, lawsuits and being sued, they are now suing a homeopathic manufacturer and retailer of homeopathic remedies! Suddenly other skeptics are praising the virtues of suing and lawyers. What a hypocritical 180 degree turn around.

Not only that, they are now actively proposing  that the whole world, I’m talking everyone, should be taking pharmaceutical drugs and injected with pharmaceutical drugs.  Some of them are nothing short of nasty and even violent about it. And according to a featured entry on a Canadian skeptic web site and organization, if you are not doing this, then according to the skeptics on this site, they accusatorially say that you are not only being  “unscientific,” but also that you are doing something illegal.

In other words, if skeptics have their way, it will eventually be illegal to be healthy and free of pharmaceutical medications.

I get all this from the skeptics on a Canadian web site who are probably the most intolerant bunch of louts I have ever seen. They have initiated a lawsuit and their stated goal is to wipe out consumers’ access to alternative health practitioners and alternative health remedies.

And they have a journalist chemist personality, a pharmacist, a politician with a rich guy uncle to whip up followers to prove that totalitarianism in clinical medicine is the right path. Where are the experts in clinical medicine and why don’t they invite one of the thousands of homeopathic medical doctors trained in science and medicine to comment?

It is one thing to have an opinion about the science of homeopathy and another to get lawyers involved to promulgate your opinions and attack those scientists and businesses with a differing conviction based on more advanced knowledge, scientific studies and wisdom.

Consumers do not benefit from this. The only benefit is to the bottom line $$$$$ of pharmaceutical companies who started the whole skeptic movement in the first place.

Swiss Study Confirms Efficacy of Professional Homeopathy Practice

The practice of homeopathy by a professional homeopath is different than simply getting over the counter homeopathic remedies. The serious clinical practice of homeopathy requires that a homeopath interacts with a patient and carefully perceives and evaluates the totality of their health problems. The first interview can be anywhere from one to two hours in length.

A good homeopath recommends that the patient continue to see their medical doctor and then prescribes a single homeopathic remedy matched to the totality. This can require careful study of homeopathic literature and clinical information and requires an individual approach to each and every person, unlike over the counter homeopathic medications or even conventional medications.

This process of interaction with a trained homeopath particularly for chronic health problems is what was evaluated by the Swiss government report along with the science behind homeopathy.

Here is a comprehensive description of the report that I like:

“The book-length report by Gudrun Bornhöft and Peter. F. Matthiessen, of the Chair in Medical Theory and Complementary Medicine of the University of Witten/Herdecke in Germany, comprehensively reviewed all the major evidence for homeopathy, from  major pre-clinical research (studies with human cell lines, studies on plants and animals and basic research into the chemical changes), and the big ‘gold standard’ trials on humans to systematic reviews, meta-analyses and epidemiological research.

The Swiss scientists had two major criteria for judging the effectiveness of the studies:  internal validity (that is, quality of study design and execution) and external validity (whether the studies accurately reflect how homeopathy is used in real life.

Evaluating the external validity of studies is particularly crucial because research into homeopathy is often conducted by doctors or scientists with little understanding of how it is supposed to be used or which treatments work best for which patients.  Many high profile studies purporting to debunk treatments like homeopathy are essentially set up to fail because the researchers essentially don’t know what they’re doing.

It works
Once all the data was assessed, the German scientists concluded that ‘many high-quality investigations of pre-clinical basic research proved homeopathic high-potencies induce ‘regulative and specific changes in cells or living organisms.’

Of the systematic reviews of human research, said the report, 20 out of 22 detected ‘at least a trend in favor of homeopathy,’ and five showed results indicating ‘clear evidence for homeopathic therapy.’

The report found particularly strong evidence for the use of homeopathy for upper respiratory tract infections or allergic reactions; 6 of 7 controlled studies were at least equivalent to conventional interventions and of 16 placebo-controlled studies, half showed significant results with homeopathy.

Perhaps most significantly, the report concluded that the effectiveness of homeopathy ‘can be supported by clinical evidence and ‘regarded as safe.’ Applied properly, it said, ‘classical homeopathy has few side-effects and the use of high-potencies is free of toxic effects.’

The Swiss government’s report was particularly scathing about the Lancet, which publicized a 2005 report supposedly to signal the ‘end of homeopathy.’  In the study, the scientific team evaluated 110 clinical trials of homeopathy and then compared them to the same number of trials of conventional medicine.  Although the aim was ostensibly to compare the 22 high quality homeopathic trials with nine high quality conventional studies, the team created criteria to eliminate a majority of the best homeopathic trials, thereby supporting their conclusion that homeopathy doesn’t work.

As the Swiss authors noted, this study [Lancet study] neglected to follow the most basic accepted guidelines on best practice for scientific reporting.  -  McTaggart

Word from the Clouds, the Science as Religion gods- “Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical”

I have talked about how skeptics with radical political and religious agendas have infiltrated the media and even science journals. They evangelize a bizarre form of material science as a pseudo-religion. They claim that only they and their cardinals know what is “serious science” and what is not.

They claim, as does Kevin Smith, (who references skeptics) in his article in Bioethics, that any scientist, no matter how respected and how many peer reviewed studies they do, if they do a positive research study on homeopathy or make a positive opinion about homeopathy, they suddenly are not a “serious scientist.” He bases his whole article on this opinionated arbitrary distinction- since you are not a serious scientist then homeopathy is unscientific and unethical. Bizarre logic and mud slinging since there are many serious scientists who have researched and know that homeopathy works.

But it is one way of scurrilously separating those who are in the true religion from those who are not!

Kevin Smith claims homeopathy is “unethical”. Ah yes, I like the “unethical” bit- in this case based on his bias and religiously following the opinion of skeptic leaders, it is  just another word for “evil” or “satan”.

Kevin Smith ignores that fact that real scientists and researchers concluded in an official government study that homeopathy works and is scientific. It ignores over 200 years of results and the millions who use it daily.

Who should we believe – a skeptic evangelist and his named contributor and instigator David Colquhoun ( a skeptic who falsified sources in a medical journal in attempting to defame chiropractors),  or a Swiss government sponsored panel of experts who investigated real time clinical results and scientific studies and concluded homeopathy IS scientific and more importantly, in real clinics works?

Skeptic Corporate Science is Now Being Repudiated

Exactly what I’ve been saying for a long time! Finally the Union of Concerned Scientists are approaching this serious problem. Corrupt corporate science  also impacts how we get medical care and also the imaginations and restrictions on alternative health therapies. Check out this link:

How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense

“Corporations attempt to exert influence at every step of the scientific and policy-making processes, often to shape decisions in their favor or avoid regulation and monitoring of their products and by-products at the public’s expense. In so doing, they often attempt to fundamentally alter the decision-making process and exploit executive branch agencies, Congress, and the courts.”

If skeptics had any real courage they would confront corporations and the real and present damage that corporate science is successfully accomplishing. Pharmaceutical corporations accomplish their corrupt goals with the support of skeptics’ organizations like Sense about Science.

It is time that real corporation medicine and pharmaceutical problems that are eroding science and killing thousands are courageously confronted.  The cowardly attacks on homeopaths by skeptics and the spreading of  imaginary problems to do with homeopathy only helps and promotes the risk management and corrupt strategies of pharmaceutical companies.

Hypocritical Skeptic Science = Whatever moves you on a whim.

Interesting how the skeptics decry how studies of homeopathy are done. Even when they are done by professional scientists. They pick apart each study. But a panel of experts that examined homeopathic studies for the Swiss government concluded that the majority of scientific studies behind homeopathy is about positive results.

In spite of being so attached to scientific truth as a means of proof that something works, at the same time, the skeptics attempt to prove homeopathy does not work by means of helter skelter stunts- taking a full bottle of a homeopathic remedy or something they think is close to it.

A prominent skeptic journalist did just this and then angrily wrote about homeopathy’s implausibility and lack of science (while proving the remedy Nux vomica which has irritability as a main feature). He did not include in his article, of course, the fact that a panel of scientific experts concluded there is much scientific proof of its efficacy. Total hypocrisy.

Inconsistent and idiotic actions do not equal science.