Originally published December 28 2008
Celebrities are Smarter than "Skeptical Scientists" When it Comes to Health Literacy
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) The science "skeptics" are at it again, attacking the credibility of celebrities who they say demonstrate astonishing levels of scientific illiteracy. Barack Obama, Oprah, Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, Kate Moss and Julianne Moore have all been labeled scientifically illiterate by the UK non-profit Sense About Science, which you'll learn more on below.
What, exactly, did these celebrities say that earned them the distinction of being labeled scientifically illiterate?
Julianne Moore warned people about using personal care products containing toxic chemicals. But according to Sense About Science, apparently, there's no such thing as a dangerous chemical in personal care products because all the chemicals have been "rigorously tested" and approved (false).
Tom Cruise was blasted yet again for describing modern psychiatry as committing "crimes against humanity." Sense About Science, on the other hand, believes it's no crime at all to dose six-month old infants with mind-altering psychotropic drugs that are linked to violent behavior. It's all scientifically supported, didn't you know?
President-elect Barack Obama made some comments during his pre-election campaigns that indicated he wanted to look into possible links between vaccines and autism. But these days, anyone who even questions the safety of vaccines is immediately labeled either a quack or scientifically illiterate by the conventional medical community, and Sense About Science is no exception: They believe vaccines are 100% safe and that the dramatic rise in autism that has closely tracked the rise in vaccinations is pure coincidence.
Kate Moss and Demi Moore were attacked over the idea that superfood diets could somehow "detoxify" the body. Sense About Science believes there's no such thing as a "toxic" body, since all the chemicals people eat are safe to begin with. Thus, they claim there is no way to detoxify the blood or the body in the first place, and foods (or juices) are nutritionally inert, apparently.
How to get a grip on the idiocy of scientific skeptics
At this point, any intelligent person reading this must be scratching their heads, wondering what, exactly, do these Non-Sense About Science scientists actually believe? And to understand that, you have to get into the heads of people I call the Skeptical Scientists (SS).
Skeptical Scientists hold some rather bizarre beliefs. Here are some of the more entertaining highlights:
• They believe that there's no such thing as a dangerous chemical in any food, medicine or personal care product. All chemicals used in such products are totally harmless and have been rigorously tested for safety, they (falsely) claim. In other words, all the following chemicals are 100% safe: Aspartame, MSG, sodium nitrite, Bisphenol-A, chemical solvents, fragrance chemicals, petrochemical derivatives, artificial coloring chemicals, chemical sweeteners and preservatives... these are all perfectly safe according to the SS! Oh yeah, melamine, mercury and fluoride are all safe, too.
• At the same time, there are some things that are terribly, terribly dangerous to human health. Can you guess what they might be? Vitamins, herbs, nutritional supplements and superfood powders. Anything made by a "health" company is automatically declared dangerous by the SS.
• But what about foods? Couldn't they be useful to human health? Nope: Foods are inert, according to the SS. There is no such thing as any food, superfood or food supplement that has any positive effect whatsoever on the human body. It is biochemically impossible, say the Skeptical Scientists, for a food to be beneficial to human health. Food is good for nothing more than calories, and all calories are the same (eating refined white sugar is the same as eating a raw apple, for example).
• In fact, the human body doesn't need food as much as it needs pharmaceuticals. Humans are born in a state of medication deficiency, the SS claim, and it can only be balanced by dripping fluoride into the water supply, or drugging children with SSRIs, or putting people on statin drugs even when they're perfectly healthy. Pharmaceuticals are now one of the five basic food groups, didn't you know?
• While vitamins and supplements may kill you, chemotherapy is actually good for you, the SS believe. Yep: Those chemicals that make your hair fall out while you're vomiting yesterday's liquid dinner and wasting away are actually nutritious! And don't you dare take any antioxidants while you're being treated with chemotherapy, because those antioxidants might be dangerous!
• According to the Skeptical Scientists, any health-related therapy that doesn't involve poisoning, slicing or drugging a patient is automatic quackery. Chiropractic care, massage therapy, acupuncture, Rolfing and yoga are all nonsensical hogwashery, they claim. What patients really need is to be poisoned with drugs, irradiated, medicated, fed more hospital food and sent home with fifteen different prescription drugs that are all perfectly safe when taken in combination, they claim.
• The human body cannot be "detoxified" with superfoods or juice diets, they insist, because there's nothing toxic in the human body to begin with. All those drugs, medications, food additives and environmental chemicals lodged in peoples' hearts and kidneys aren't actually bad for you, didn't you know? They're harmless according to the SS, and anybody who says you need to "detoxify" your body is obviously running a scam.
Yes, indeed, the agents of quackery have taken over the Skeptical Science community. They've never met an FDA-approved pharmaceutical they didn't like, nor a natural health modality they didn't hate. They believe vaccines are perfectly safe, but feeding a child a multivitamin is dangerous. There are no toxic chemicals in anything other than vitamins, they say, and the only reason so many children are diseased today is because they don't yet have enough drugs in them!
How to become a Skeptical Scientist in five easy steps
If all this makes good sense to you, you might find yourself wondering, "Gee, how can I become a Skeptical Scientist, too?"
Being a Skeptical Scientist is lots of fun, after all: You get to take money from drug companies (and they're rich!) while wearing a white lab coat and running around with an inflated ego, bashing celebrities for making statements about health that violate your fabricated medical authority.
For those who want to get on board with the Skeptical Scientist movement, I've developed a simple five-step process to get your started:
Step 1: Get a lobotomy
This is easier to accomplish than you think. As full-frontal lobotomies are still being carried out today in the psychiatric industry (although they aren't called lobotomies anymore), all you have to do is act like you have a psychiatric disorder, and before long, they'll carry you away for "treatment." How can you fake a psychiatric disorder? It's simple: Just publicly declare your opposition to vaccines, and you'll be considered absolutely looney.
Step 2: Go to medical school
It's important that you complete step one by getting a lobotomy before proceeding to step two and going to med school. You won't survive in med school if your entire brain is intact, because you might accidentally think for yourself. It's best to enter the school with a mental handicap that's just severe enough to prevent you from engaging your own thinking skills but not so severe that you can't regurgitate the new propaganda being taught to you. You still have to pass their academic tests, after all.
Step 3: Start a non-profit funded by drug companies
This is the fun part: Just start a non-profit and give it some innocent-sounding name like "Consumers for Free Choice" or "Science for a Better World" and then hit up all the wealthy drug companies for millions of dollars in donations, promising to push their pro-drug agenda onto the public.
Step 4: Start issuing official press releases
Once your non-profit is up and running, start issuing press releases about how scientifically illiterate celebrities are, or how dangerous vitamins are, or how many lives could be saved with yet more screening for "adults with ADHD." It hardly matters what you say; the mainstream media will reprint your press releases as fact, not even bothering to fact-check a single statement you make. You might even get on DrudgeReport, who has now become a pusher of the Big Pharma agenda by spreading lies about "scientific illiteracy."
Step 5: Proclaim your position to be non-debatable
Here's the best part of all this: Once you decide on a position to defend -- such as supporting mandatory vaccinations of all teenage girls, or supporting the wearing of pink flowery thong underwear by all medical personnel -- simply declare it to be the "inarguable truth" and refuse to debate anyone on scientific grounds.
Whether the issue is the toxicity of mercury in dental fillings, the mass-fluoridation of the public through the water supply, or mandatory vaccination policies, simply declare yourself to be the champion of almighty righteousness, wiser than God himself, and dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as being scientifically illiterate.
This is easier to pull off if you have more letters after your name, such as Dr. Jack Meov, M.D. PhD. Id. IoT.
This is a brilliant defense against those who might attack your position, because by declaring yourself to be the only source of authority on the subject of health, you can dismiss any evidence that threatens your position as being woefully misinformed. If you ever meet anybody who was actually cured of cancer by natural remedies, for example, just declare it to be "spontaneous" and continue ranting against cancer cure quackery.
In fact, it is at this stage that you no longer need to be right at all. Logic is now irrelevant, as is scientific fact. All truth is now protected be declaration, without any need for supporting evidence. Never again will you have to answer to opposing views, critics or the laws of physical reality. You simply state whatever belief you wish were really true, and your statement alone grants it scientific standing.
At this point, you will be invited to write articles for medical journals and have them approved by your "peers" who also believe the same things you do. Don't worry: The medical journals won't publish any competing or dissenting papers, so you'll be among Skeptical Scientist friends there, too. You don't even have to reveal your secret financial ties to drug companies.
Let's face it: Being a Skeptical Scientist can be a whole lot of fun! Where else do you get to rewrite the rules of physical reality and con a whole planet full of people at the same time?
Some proposed new ideas for the Skeptical Scientists
You might think the SS have already taken all the really loony ideas to defend, such as supporting gunpoint vaccination policies, or arresting parents who try to protect their children from chemotherapy. Or dripping toxic fluorosilicic acid into public water supplies...
But actually, there are a great many more loony ideas to get behind if you're interested in joining the Skeptical Scientist community.
For example, with so many children dying of cancer these days, why not get behind mandatory preventive chemotherapy in children? You could argue that ALL children should be put on small doses of chemotherapy as a way to prevent cancer and "save lives!" Get laws passed making it mandatory and label all dissenters as "quacks." Have the parents arrested if they refuse to inject their children with chemotherapy. Heck, why not just call it something cute like, "Kemo for Kids!"
Better yet, you could probably get municipal water treatment facilities to drip chemotherapy chemicals into the water supply in order to make sure everyone gets their "therapy."
Or how about this one: Since antioxidants in food interfere with chemotherapy, you could argue that all foods containing antioxidants should be banned. It would be a major medical accomplishment to get rid of green tea, blueberries, broccoli and raw sprouts, thereby saving chemotherapy patients from the devastating effects of antioxidants.
Funny how their beliefs happen to coincide with profits
This is the logic of the Skeptical Scientists (SS). There's nothing from the world of nature that's good for you, and there's nothing from the world of chemicals that's bad for you.
In fact, if you want to simplify it all and accurately predict exactly which things the SS will advocate versus which things they'll oppose, it's quite simple: They advocate all those things that bring them profits and power (vaccines, chemotherapy, mammography, psychiatric medication, etc.) while opposing all those things that compete with their profits or power (sunlight, superfoods, nutritional therapies, compounding pharmacies, etc.).
If shoving a broomstick up your butt could be profitized and monopolized by these people, they'd declare it to be a valuable medical therapy and argue that everyone should have it done on a regular basis. (But alas, this therapy has only caught on at Gitmo, which is run by a whole different brand of criminal-minded authorities...)
The SS are responsible for untold human suffering
All jokes aside, let's get to the serious truth in all this: These Skeptical Scientists who oppose everything natural and promote everything chemical are directly responsible for the suffering and death of millions of people a year.
By attacking the credibility of natural therapies while declaring toxic chemicals to be safe, they gravely misinform consumers who may ultimately be harmed or killed by following the advice of these "experts." When they say that vaccines are perfectly safe, or that sunlight is dangerous, or that vitamin E will kill you, what they're really doing is advocating a culture of death that will result in a great loss of human life.
Beyond being mere agents of death and suffering, these Skeptical Scientists are the very worst kind of quacks, too. Not merely because they promote quackery, but because they do so from a position of delusional authority! In the minds of most consumers, you see, they lend credibility to the ridiculous: That smothering your baby with toxic chemicals in personal care products is harmless, or that taking nutritional supplements is dangerous.
These are the same quacks that, a generation ago, insisted that smoking cigarettes was good for your health. A few generations before that, they sold Bayer Heroin for Children as a cough medicine. These are the same dopes who promoted thalidomide for pregnant woman and saccharin as a "safe" sweetener. The chemical quackery persists, even if the names of the chemicals change.
Read your history about leaded gasoline or Teflon or aspartame. The story is always the same: Corporate-controlled quacks declare the chemicals to be perfectly safe while discrediting safer, more natural choices.
And some of today's most notorious quacks are apparently working on behalf of Nonsense About Science, which goes out of its way to attack celebrities who are actually offering valuable health advice to the public.
GM Foods really are dangerous. Just ask the rats who ate them. Or not... because they're already dead.
The mercury in dental fillings and vaccines really does cause autism and other neurological disorders.
Toxic chemicals in perfumes, cosmetics and personal care products really do cause cancer. (But not according to the companies that sell them, surprised?)
Nutritional supplements really are good for you, and taking detoxification herbs, juices and quality vitamins really can eliminate huge quantities of heavy metals.
In fact, just plain old common sense tells you these SS people are bonkers. Chemical are good for you but nutrition is bad for you? Bizarre.
It makes me wonder how a person even gets to that point.
The SS live in the world of self delusion...
I've really tried to see the world from the point of view of these Skeptical Scientists. But I just can't seem to deactivate parts of my brain long enough to pull it off. Every time I try to imagine that I'm a pro-vaccine, pro-pharma, pro-GM food, pro-chemical "scientist," I can't get past the part about the laws of biochemistry and how such chemicals cause such harm to the body of humans (or practically any biological organism, for that matter).
I mean, if I were going to apply the same psychotic logic to, let's say, the laws of gravity, I suppose I could toss a marble into the air and then IMAGINE it's not falling back down to the closest planetary mass (which just happens to be planet Earth, since that's where I'm standing), and maybe I could even hold a press conference and insist that the marble would never come back down, but if I just opened my eyes and actually looked at the marble, I'd eventually have to acknowledge the reality that the laws of gravity do, indeed, work quite well and the marble is falling back towards the Earth (don't get into the quantum world on me here, folks, I'm talking about a macro level of observation from the perspective of a human being).
No matter how hard I try, I just can't subscribe to the level of self delusion necessary to convincingly believe that a marble I toss into the air will never fall back to the Earth. Neither can I believe that HRT drugs aren't harming aquatic ecosystems, or that pesticides aren't linked to neurological disorders, or that the human body is somehow deficient in psychiatric medications.
Apparently, some scientists are much better at the self delusion thing than I am, because they can weave verbal illusions on command, at any (paid) speaking engagement or (paid) media appearance or (paid) Continuing Medical Education event. Money, it seems, greatly enhances the ability to or arrogant people to delude themselves into thinking their B.S. is true and convincing others of the same.
That's why, at a financial level, I'm happy to announce that NaturalNews continues to barely scrape by. We're not making any money, and in my five years of writing for NaturalNews, I've never been paid a dime to write a single article or review any product. Where we have affiliate relationships (with newsletter publishers, for example), I always disclose them, unlike the "scientific" community where members habitually hide their financial ties to the corporations they're prostituting for.
NaturalNews isn't wealthy. We've got no sponsors. Even the related services we've launched like Health Book Summaries (www.HealthBookSummaries.com) are far from breaking even. A lot of what we do here is purely for the benefit of the public, and we'll never earn a million dollars telling the truth in a world run by evil corporations and their medical puppets, but we have one thing going for us here at NaturalNews: The laws of nature.
The laws of Nature override the SS
You see, the laws of nature reveal that sunlight is good for you, not bad for you. You need sunlight to survive. Go without sunlight for long enough and you'll end up with weak bones and a bad case of depression.
The laws of nature state that mercury is bad for you. Therefore, injecting mercury into your blood, or filling your mouth with mercury is automatically bad for you, too. (Because whatever's in your mouth for that long ends up leaking into your tissues...)
The laws of nature state that an economy running on disease and chemical contamination is unsustainable and will eventually implode. The downfall of the United State of America and its sick care system is now inevitable. It is a law of nature that you cannot create abundance and health by keeping people sick and misinformed.
The laws of nature state that whatever humans unleash onto the world around them will come back to destroy them. Whether it's chemicals in the water, or emissions in the air or the destruction of delicate ecosystems, those actions initiate reactions that humans will find quite undesirable: The topsoil blows away, the oceans die, the weather patterns get more radical and crops fail, the viruses escape into the wild, the food supply collapses, the fossil fuels become scarce, fertility plummets... whatever.
The Skeptical Scientists, of course, say none of this is a threat to human life. Just keep on poisoning your bodies, poisoning the land, the air, the water and the entire planet. There's no harm in it, they say, especially when important companies are making a buck. So why worry?
But the laws of nature hold a higher authority than the laws of Man. And Man's laws become instantly irrelevant when the laws of nature seek balance.
Isaac Newton and the 2060 apocalypse
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's a quote from Isaac Newton that's taught in every high school physics class. Yet somehow, by the time these Skeptical Scientists graduate from college, they've forgotten Newton's Third Law. They've also forgotten (or were never taught) that Isaac Newton himself wrote extensively on the apocalypse, authoring several treatises that predicted the destruction of the world by 2060. Read more about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_...
I'm not saying I agree with Newton on the apocalypse, but isn't it interesting that one of the greatest "scientific minds" in the history of science created a kind of Bible code that interpreted scriptures into a prediction of the end of the world?
Not surprisingly, this side of Newton is never taught in the halls of academia, nor is it acknowledged by the Skeptical Scientists. Just like they do with all evidence they cross paths with, they conveniently delete anything that doesn't support their predetermined views. In doing so, they discard the very information they so desperately need in order to light a fire under a scientific revolution that would enhance the understanding of the natural world and embrace new knowledge about health that could enhance the lives of people across the planet.
But as is explained in the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_Sc...), science does not advance by the merit of new ideas. Rather, science primarily advances by the death of those who cling to the outmoded falsehoods they've invested their careers in!
In other words -- and this is no exaggeration whatsoever -- science usually advances at the pace at which scientists die!
And thus the pathway to scientific advancement becomes quite coherent: The deaths (or at least the retirements) of the authoritative few who cling to the falsehood of "better living through chemistry" is a prerequisite to the advancement of scientific knowledge in modern human civilization.
We should feel fortunate, then, that these people follow their own advice and take no vitamins. They bathe themselves in the very chemicals they advocate, and they avoid sunlight at all costs. Like creatures of the night, they slither from one high-paying career to another, hawking the very toxic chemicals accumulating in their own blood. And in the end, they will die of their own hands as the very chemicals they promoted to a polluted world command their bodies to cease functioning.
And in that moment of death, when that arrogance fades, and the beings they once were transform into the soulless physical matter they always believed represented the limits of human experience... when their last breath escapes as a meek whisper into the universe, they will experience a glimpse of enlightenment and realize, for the first time, that they were eternally wrong.
Their lives were spent as puppets of destruction. And without them defending their long-extinct beliefs, the world will finally be free to move forward and embrace a revolutionary scientific understanding of reality where health triumphs over disease and health knowledge triumphs over health illiteracy (which is widespread among the scientific community, by the way).
By the way, in no way am I hinting that anyone should accelerate the deaths of the Skeptical Scientists, even if that is the pathway to beneficial scientific revolutions. These things need to be allowed to happen their own way, in their own time. Besides, these people are killing themselves and each other at a rapid pace anyway, thanks to the fact that they follow their own health advice. There's no need to interfere with the self destruction of an entire profession.
Why modern medicine is 80 years behind
Let's face it, though: While physics advanced quite rapidly from the Newtonian view of the world to a quantum view of the world in the 20th century, the medical industry stayed stubbornly stuck in the biochemical / biophysical model of reality. Modern medicine is probably 80 years behind where it could have been if the pharmaceutical companies and the AMA hadn't hijacked western medicine and destroyed competing health therapies.
So we're overdue for a revolution in medical science.
The last big revolution came in the years following the invention of the microscope. Once the scope was invented, germs could suddenly be seen. Skeptical Scientists thought "germs" were a bunch of hogwash up until then, by the way. Invisible creatures that cause disease? Get real. Sounds like quackery... But once the microscope was invented, suddenly the "germ theory" of disease became the very foundation of medicine, and it continues to this day with such persistence that modern medicine is still looking for things like a "vaccine for cancer" -- an idea that's ludicrous from the start.
I predict the next great revolution in medicine will follow the invention of a new device that can allow scientists to visualize bioenergy fields. If energy flow could be readily seen and studied, it would unleash a wave of new scientific research into Chi-Gong, meditation, yoga, high-vibration foods, mind/body medicine, homeopathy, magnetism, prayer, the placebo effect and much more.
That invention may be decades away, however. So don't hold your breath. Or if you do, make sure you count to four while you're holding it, and then slowly exhale while counting to eight.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml