Stop This Man (Before He Kills Again)

"Senator Tom Harkin is up to his old shenanigans again, trying at ever turn to do for the actual practice of quackery what he did for the research of quackery by creating the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and what he still does to promote quackery by berating NCCAM for in essence being too scientific in not having validated enough of his cherished woo. In essence, Harkin has slipped a provision into the Senate version of the 600+ page health care reform bill that is currently taking shape in Congress that included funding for 'community wellness programs,' which, if science-based, would be a good thing, but which, when sponsored by a quackery supporter like Tom Harkin, is usually woo-speak for including all manner of unscientific 'alternative' medical modalities and dubious dietary advice, usually with supplements. As I've characterized it before, you can look at it as a 'bait and switch,' in which CAM advocates appropriate sensible, science-based modalities like diet and exercise as being 'alternative' (the bait) and then use that to argue that the woo they associate with such modalities (up to even pure woo like reiki or homeopathy) is effective (the switch).

Another provision that laid bare Harkin's true plans, however, was the one he also slipped into the bill that includes 'alternative' medicine practitioners as part of the bill's definition of the 'health care workforce.' That's part of the Trojan Horse aspect of what Harkin's trying to do. In the belly of a sturdy-looking offering lurks a whole lot of pseudoscience. It doesn't take too much consideration to realize that the reason for this provision is almost certainly to lay the groundwork for requiring the government to pay for 'alternative' medicine services, and, as the government goes, so too goes the private health insurance industry, at least when it comes to what health care services will be funded."

-- Orac, catching the bee pollen man - as he tries to sting the rest of us - on Respectful Insolence.

Heads Up: Anybody Lose A Wallet?

"NCCAM is no longer funding trials of homeopathy."

-- Orac, with more good news on the "healing energy" and "vital force" fronts, and Respectful Insolence.

See But, Politically, He'd Have To Reconsider

"The bottom line is that, whatever good Oprah may have done with her money, when it comes to medicine and science, she is a force for evil. Her intentions may be the best in the world, but that is only why she is the living embodiment of the cliche that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's especially true when that same road is also paved with no mental filter of critical thinking to keep out nonsense, and Oprah clearly has no mental filter when it comes to pseudoscience and quackery."

-- Orac, who none-the-less voted for The Evil One's hand-picked candidate, which ain't exactly smart nor showing any kind of Respectful Insolence.

Look At It This Way: It Could Be Worse

"He does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."

-- Judge John Rodenberg, ruling in the case of Daniel Hauser, whose parents claimed he was "a 'medicine man' in a cult of faux Native American wannabes,...led by Philip 'Cloudpiler' Landis,...a white man who claims to be a naturopath and Native American 'healer' peddling 'cures' for AIDS and cancer" - which Orac exposes all the time - on Respectful Insolence.

Hauser's parents could have called Karine Anne Brunck, TMR's killer/healer ex-wife, who regularly over-estimates her "powers": Their troubles would now be over.

But, of course, we'd still be blamed somehow.

You're Doing A Great Job, Brownie (Or "It Was Just My Imagination - Runnin' Away With Me")

"'After the steaming piles of pseudoscience flew right and left, the skeptics in attendance asked our questions: what bacteria cause this? Why would doctors cover up a cure for cancer? What studies have you done? Where were they published? How long have you followed your patients? Are you a doctor? We asked far more questions than the rest of the audience combined, even though they outnumbered us six or seven times. I doubt that Randi, Dennis, Brad, Don and I were the only ones skeptical of his claims - but we were the only ones voicing that skepticism.

Dowling did not have our answers. After claiming to have published studies, after claiming a 100% cure rate, after calling himself a doctor, he said that he had the proof. And when we asked for it, we got dodgy answers, evasions, and even the confession that he was not in fact a doctor. Of course, he was only a few semesters away from a medical degree in the Caribbean.

This is not surprising. What is surprising is the cultish, exploitative manner in which Dowling operates. In order to get the cure for cancer, you have to jump through a lot of expensive hoops.'

Actually, there is nothing at all surprising about the cultish exploitive manner in which Dowling operates."

-- Orac, joining Masala Skeptic in, once again, dropping "the 'c' word" on a lying leftist - but, like Bill Clinton, the big baby won't get into seriously tackling Liberal NewAge cultism as an issue (even though they're in power and "they outnumbered us six or seven times") because (get this:) those attacks are "partisan" - but - since he's the perfect example of the kind of doctor NewAge cultists want to convert, exploit or eliminate - O-boy's still giving it a cowardly dallop of face-saving Respectful Insolence.

Go figure.

Cult Watchers, That's Who: Arianna's Crazy

"Apparently, physicians and medical scientists are just as disgusted with the Huffington Post as your average 'right wing' blogger. Who knew?"

-- Charles Johnson, giving a plug to Orac's Respectful Insolence of a few days ago, on Little Green Footballs.

Farrah Fawcett: Another Kind Of Pin-Up Now

"Dr. Jacob is into some serious woo,..."

-- Orac, commenting on one of Farrah Fawcett's NewAge German "doctors", who has been "treating" her anal cancer using "vitamin preparations that she says boost the immune system" (Yea: she says,...) since Farrah - using the wisdom she's always been known for - was apparently intent on blowing what's left of her time and money on taking the Steve McQueen route outta here, which is deserving of Respectful Insolence.

"Hope" And "Change"? You People Are Too Damn DUMB For There To Be Any Hope - Or Change!!!

"Let me get this straight. The City of Baltimore is paying a firm $40,000 a year to provide acupuncture and it has no idea if it's doing any good helping imprisoned addicts beat their addiction? Way to go, Baltimore!"

-- Orac, covering another true story of NewAge delusional thinking, and NewAge quackery, that's so breathtakingly stupid to be taking place - during a recession - you just have to read it, on Respectful Insolence.

Don't Ask: It's Just Going To Piss You Off

"Who on earth is too stupid to use a blanket?"

-- Orac, cracking us up by sounding so exasperated he could write for TMR, while still delivering Respectful Insolence.

Liberal Scientists Are Just Covert NewAge Idiots Determined To Destroy Their Own Credibility

"Did you know that "Western medicine" is like the U.S. financial system right now? Mike Adams tells us so,..."

-- Orac, who used to believe in some woo, but now has a problem with this quack's analogy, thinking it's worthy of Respectful Insolence.

"I saw a couple of recent ScienceBlogs posts that got me thinking. The first was Orac's post on the germ-theory-denialism of Robert O. Young,...and the second was on Gene Expression about a study showing conservatives have more fear,...It got me thinking about the alt-health mindset, and why to me it seems similar to the neocon mindset,..."

-- The Perky Skeptic, a former "mystic, devoutly religious Wiccan priestess, alt-med, tarot-card-reading person" who "lived with a constant background radiation of fear", projecting her world-view on others, while making an equally stupid analogy - that Orac not only approves of but suggested others read - as part of The Skeptic's Circle.

The Online Science Community: Under The Microscope With The Crack In It (Part II)

If you missed Part I, go here:

"Believe it or not, there was a time when I didn't consider acupuncture to be a form of woo."

-- Orac, of Respectful Insolence, making an obvious admission.



It now seems tragic for me to continue pursuing this series, but Orac's words go to the heart of my point about the online science community: they're a collection of NewAge (or former-NewAge) Liberals who, in my estimation (by not exploring their biases fully) haven't totally seen the error of their ways in other areas. It's like Orac can't understand, as he ponders why homeopathy still persists, these bad things happen because people like him allow them to happen.



I clearly remember when I first suggested he should consider actually doing something - other than merely making fun of woo - and the derisive replies I received from him and those on his message board. It pissed me off, because I was desperately looking for help then, and each of those comments just seemed to be another bit of confirmation - not that the situation was hopeless (I've obviously not lost hope and have even seen Orac grudgingly come around) - but that it was the science community that was hopeless. Like all NewAgers and Libs, they were so sold on the smell of their own farts, it was clear my job was going to be bigger than I thought.

Like Ted Patrick before me, getting stifled by the courts in the 70's, I was becoming a black cult fighter, but this time, anti-cultism is being abandoned by the liberals in science: I had made the innocent mistake of naively considering science my (natural) ally.



Unfortunately, it didn't stop there. I thought, maybe, it was just the guys with the attitude problem, right? Surely, female scientists wouldn't be as close-minded as the guys. So I found the ever-popular Skepchick's site, but, while her posts could be somewhat informative, they could just as easily start like this:

"I once was a hippy. Okay, I still consider myself rather hippy-ish, but not like I was. I worked as an activist for a progressive nonprofit, used all organic everything, ate a completely vegetarian diet, and I smoked a lot. Tobacco. Of course. Nothing wrong with any of those things, it’s just that all together they technically made me a hippy.

But as part of the hippiness, I also thought homeopathy was a perfectly acceptable alternative to prescription medication. I didn’t really think about it — it just seemed to be common knowledge. At the time, I assumed that homeopathy was the same as naturopathy: all natural ingredients that people have known for centuries to be beneficial to a person’s health."

My heart sank - the bitch is a NewAger - and, since then, it's been all downhill.



Oh sure, occasionally I'll find a few people in science who get it but, almost to a man, they're all doctors - not scientists. (I was shocked when Richard Dawkins did The Enemies of Reason. Good for him.) Almost every pure science site around is a sickening display of NewAge and liberalism, to such a sickening degree it's, well, sickening. It doesn't surprise me they can't see the huge holes in the arguments for Global Warming because not one of them is objective in the least. Listen to Abel Pharmboy over at Terra Sigillata:

"Two political posts in two days. Apologies to those who come here for the science but these are the issues getting my attention and energy this week.

Billy Bragg is a special guy in my life and this song from 2002 was particularly prescient.

In memory of those lost in the 11 September attacks, the Spanish 11 March bombings, the thousands of allied forces and Iraqi people dead and injured, and all around the world whose needs have gone unmet in exchange for financing an unguided and unnecessary war."

Yea sure, cry me a river, you simple-minded asshole. Stay on the pharm, boy, because you understand absolutely nothing about war, world politics, self-defense, foreign affairs, the Middle East, or music. (I once toured with Billy Bragg - great guy - but, let's face it, he's a fucking commie with an acoustic guitar and, in 2008, you can't get much more out of touch than that.) And with dickheads like Abel Pharmboy in it, you don't have to be a creationist to think science is being held hostage by some pretty dumb people.



The Left has lost 6 of the last 8 elections, but has that caused the scientific community to examine the evidence, and re-think their assumptions, especially, about themselves? Not that I can see. They're throwing out the same, lame, charges as all the rest of the idiots and, then, wondering why the woo-miesters get play but no one pays them any mind when they make a pronouncement. Well, it's their own faults for being such wimps when it comes to being honest about the reality they claim to be examining in such detail. I, for one, ain't fooled, by their degrees, the bullshit they say, or anything they claim to stand for:

They're liberal liars, just like all the rest.

The Online Science Community: Under The Microscope With The Crack In It (A Series)

In the comments section of a post I recently did on Al Gore, I got challenged on three assertions I made about the science community. They went like this:

1) The science community is made up (almost overwhelmingly) by Leftists, and - like all Leftists - they're not really prone to questioning their own assumptions. Especially the assumption they're not affected by NewAge thinking. (They're too smart - ha, ha: this ain't an I.Q. test, folks,...)

2) They haven't studied cultism, or NewAge's pagan roots, and the sneaky way pagans work on/in society - meaning: how it's worked on them - very well.

3) Like everyone NewAge has affected, they want to be heroes, so they can tell the rest of us what's what.

Because of the way my challenger attacked me (insisting I come at the issue of NewAge thinking, and cultism, as a scientist would; kindly - or arrogantly, depending on your perspective - explaining what a "fallacy" is (man, do those guys love that word), displaying hurt that I would even question the science community's biases when skepticism is supposed to be science's game, etc.) I assume he/she is another Leftist scientist. But there's no way to be sure, because it was an "anonymous" commenter; it wouldn't surprise me though, since (as I just pointed out in my last post) if there's one thing most of the Left lacks, it's the courage to really stand up and be counted.

Ah, but I am starting to count. That's what my challenger asked me to do - analyze the evidence - and see if there's any conclusions that can be drawn from what I find. Keep in mind: I didn't really set out to do this today, but as I was surfing around the web, doing my regular reading, certain things did start to stand out and, since the guy/gal suggested I do it, it occurs to me this actually can be a "teaching moment" for everybody - if only to see themselves through my, admittedly conservative, and more cult-obsessed, eyes.

And one more (I think) very-important point: all the science blogs I'm about to savage like Conan (he-he, except for one) are places I visit because I like them. I don't visit them to punch holes in their theories, or to shake my head and think "these stupid Liberals" - I save all that for political sites. But I go to these blogs to (hopefully) read about some real ideas being discussed by intelligent people who are serious in their intent to get at some kind of truth through the use of the scientific process. Unfortunately - and, at this point, "needless to say" - that's not what I always find and it hurts. I feel really let down.

Also, before I do this, I'd like to add that I'm not picking-and-choosing which blogs I'm going after - these are just a few of the many blogs I've found to be the most popular science-loving, and skeptical, sites around. And (since I was first looking for answers, oh so long ago, regarding NewAge and cultish questions) their biases have blazed like search lights before a club opening.

So that's it. That's all the criteria I'm using.

O.K. - TMR's thoughts on the Left, NewAge, and cultism, in science and skepticism - here's what I got:

Well, first there's P.Z. Myers' blog, Pharyngula, which is subtitled: "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal". Hmm.

Shall I go on? Shall I belabor the point? Shall I make you, the reader, have to wonder which of the three categories I'm going to put good ol' P.Z. under? I mean, putting "ejaculations" and "godless" in the same sentence could, as I see it, indicate a tendency towards NewAge thinking (NewAgers love to think of themselves as atheists, even as they suck up to whatever Eastern drek is in vogue, because they stupidly assume atheism is merely their paganistic rejection of Christianity and not the whole "spiritual" kit and kaboodle. They really are like, "Duh" that way. And they like to fuck, but, mind you, they do it "spiritually" for the "energy".)

No, I seriously think the word "liberal" is enough to give P.Z.'s game away and I'll assume nothing else about him at this time, except - no matter how smart he may be in other areas, or whether or not (like a lot of Liberals) he harbors a desire to have his bearded face turned into a glazed doughnut - the man simply doesn't know how to vote in his own best interest.

Next up is one of my favorite blogs, Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant. Mike has really disappointed me recently - not because of his obvious and regularly proclaimed liberal bias, but because he got rid of that cool picture of himself, smugly looking into the camera wearing Satan's horns (above) which I always thought was a hoot. I'd crack up every time I saw it but, for some reason, he ditched it for that new butt-ugly black-and-white thing; which only serves to remind me that, when it comes to Canadians, there's no accounting for taste (what happened to the photo, Mike?).

Another of the draws that "Big Heathen Mike" has - which I love - is his Friday Punch In The Mouth, which tells me the man ain't as liberal as he pretends. (Liberals hate violence of any kind - even when, or especially when, it comes to the defense of some principle, or even a human being - but not my man, Mike: he just let's 'em fly with the best of 'em, which one can really appreciate at the end of each week.) Why, the guy is even courteous enough to give instructions on how it's done right:

He also serves up excellent examples of, um, "technique":

Come on: a punch to the face doesn't get any better than that.

Unfortunately, like a lot of self-proclaimed liberals, Mike, too, is hung up on Christianity - really hung up on Christianity - so it can tend to taint his perspective on other important (and probably, from an atheistic perspective, more immediate) issues; like the Iraq War, or music (Message to Mike: Dave Matthews is really bad music, Dude. Don't let that shit happen again,....) I thought a guy who gives people a punch in the face just because it's Friday would know all this.

Anyway, as I said, I really do like Mike's blog a lot and, yea, he's another liberal - and a Canadian - but what the hell, he's open about all of it, so I'm in the guy's corner. I just wish he'd bring that photo back: I loved that thing.

Now we come to the Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb of the skeptic world: Chris and Mike, The Brothers Hoofnagle. (Yea, "Hoofnagle." Can you believe it?) I've been so offended by this pair (actually, that's not true: Mike is the truly offensive one) that I did a post, a long time ago, specifically about their blog, Denialism.com. Since then I've tried to put the knowledge it exists out of my mind.

Are the Hoofnagle's liberal? You betcha. To the point of disgust. And the whole cultish denialism thing - equating people who deny Global Warming to people who deny the Holocaust - is just as offensive.

I really don't have much good to say about anything Mike Hoofnagle is involved in (I hear, Heaven help us, he's getting into medicine). As a matter of fact, I dislike the guy so damn much I'm not gonna speak on him anymore, or put a link to his blog (or a tag in this post) because the less said the better. I mean, I understand: starting out in life, with a name like "Hoofnagle", things must have been hard - but he coulda changed it - and he didn't. So now, no matter how much shit he talks, he's obviously filled with a self-loathing that he can't help but lay on people. But I have news for him: the rest of his bullshit is just more icing on his life's fucked-up cake. My only advice is that he and P.Z. Myers might consider putting an ad on Craig's List together or something. You know, for "frosting."

And finally (for now) comes one of the Queen Bees of the science world: Orac, Orac, Orac, of Respectful Insolence. (All hail, Orac.) This guy is one of the more interesting cases out there in Science World:

On the one hand, he can come off as an extremely reasonable and likable guy, putting the boot to groups that deserve a swift kick to the keester, like creationists and those silly (yet dangerous to children) antivaccinationists. On the other hand, Orac IS a liberal, and - even though he does a regular feature called Your Friday Dose of Woo - I've always found him to be kind of a NewAge apologist. Actually, that's not a totally accurate description, so let me clarify:

Much like being an agnostic gives believers a bit of wiggle room (what do you mean, you're not sure there's no god?) in the time I've known of Orac, he has from time-to-time been pretty credulous when it comes to the picture of normalcy that NewAge cultists have tried to paint for themselves. Now, this could be because of what I perceive as the man's overall attempts to be decent, and fair, but - being a liberal - it also stinks up the joint with the sickly-sweet smell of male cowardice.

Of all the science bloggers, who have been at it for a while, Orac is probably the best positioned to be a major general in the fight against NewAge influence in science and medicine: he's young, quite knowledgeable, and quick with a quip when he needs one. But he's, also, so caught up in the liberal culture of the scientific community that he can't see the forest for the trees. Even he seems to recognize it, like recently, when he mentioned a Panda Bear, M.D. post on "alternative medicine" that forced him to admit the major difference in their approaches. Orac said:

"Panda's muscling in on my territory and doing a frighteningly good job of it, too. I may not always agree with his politics (in fact, I frequently don't), but he definitely knows how to deal with woo."

Yes he does. Muscling in on your territory? Dude, he's kicking your fucking ass. He's wiping your territory off on his pantleg. He's taking the candy from the baby - woo-wooing the whole time - and there ain't shit you can do about it, Dad, because - let's face it - you ain't man enough.

And, oh please, let me be the first to point out that he's doing it using the exact same approach I've been asking people like Orac to assume from the very first (I say "asking" because they've, mostly, been so full of themselves - based only on their knowledge, and use, of big-assed words - that they've always demanded some form of subservience before they'd even consider the wisdom of anybody who couldn't be bothered to show off):

Panda Bear speaks clearly, and repeatedly makes it known that NewAge shit is whack - all of it - no further discussion necessary.

Panda Bear clearly, and repeatedly, makes it known that NewAge nonsense should be referred to as "nonsense".

Panda Bear clearly, and repeatedly, makes it known that those NewAge medical and scientific beliefs and practices that involve cultists should be called "cults" - not "quasi-religious", or "spiritual", or whatever other wannabe-respectful term the liberal scientists have been searching to use, so as to, both, avoid saying the word and/or to avoid the appearance of prejudice. But your dumb asses should be prejudiced: the NewAgers are attacking you in your own fucking house!!!

Panda Bear clearly, and repeatedly, criticizes the medical and scientific communities for falling for NewAge - with the same bravado he uses on NewAge itself - and he judges hospitals especially guilty for taking the "easy money" that is, obviously, the life blood of the whole NewAge enterprise.

Oh, and Panda Bear has TMR on his blogroll, while clearly, and repeatedly, telling everyone to read the damn thing, so they can understand NewAge, politics, and a whole bunch of other things some of you science assholes know waaay too little about - like how to treat people when they come to you for help.

You heard me: TMR doesn't exist just so science folks can troll, and point, and say, "heh-heh" (like they're Beavis and Butthead, and I'm science's circus freak because I actually suffered something bad because of NewAge) it's here because your stupid asses might actually need to learn something. Yea, from little ol' me. (Imagine that.)

Not only has the science community's behavior over the years been stupid, and juvenile, but it's been (excessively) cruel: you guys are a fine example of Liberal Fascism. I first came to you for help. And what did I get? You called me names; you took potshots at my divorce (how hard is that? I'm divorced - Ooohh); you joked about NewAge - which is, mostly, all you do - and right in front of me, when I told you I had a death involved and it wasn't a laughing matter. What are you guys doing now? Going on about whatever other "study" is out? (A "study" of homeopathy? Are you kidding me?) You guys may see yourselves as defenders of some great ideal but, let me tell you, from where I stand, you are nothing like how you see yourselves. You're not even close. It's no wonder woo is making inroads into science and medicine, because, honestly, the only people buying what you're selling is you. Everybody else is ignoring you.

Personally, I think it's wild - and fitting - that a conservative, Christian, veteran of the United States Marines (Hooah!) and not one of the many wonderfully wimpy atheists from England (i.e. Richard Dawkins, etc., who I love) is the one to finally open Orac's eyes to his own (major) failings in this regard. I just wish it coulda been me.

But - as we're all seeing in this presidential campaign season - for some mysterious reason, being a passionate black guy, and one that's trying to be on the same American team, just doesn't seem to cut it in Liberal circles,...though no one can exactly put their finger on why. I figure it's just the liberal tendency towards hypocrisy. I mean, isn't hypocrisy really the shame of Liberalism - or what they're calling being "progressive"? Whatever. That's a problem for someone else - I'm a conservative - and I gotta go.

I hope this very first post in this series has indicated *something* worthwhile to y'all in the science community (a lot of libs so far) but, I imagine, it won't. I expect the usual sniping, nitpicking, name-calling, and assorted cheap shots you typically fall back on, but that's O.K. - I'm a big boy - and haven't been given any reason to expect anything better. You're Liberals, Feminists, NewAgers, and Wimps.

Hardly the types that can handle The Macho Response

Part II can be found here.

A Bit Of Respectful Insolence For (My Man) Orac

Hey Y'all,

This letter is in response to one of Orac's recent postings, on women-hating, that was sparked by an article on the World Net Daily site:

Orac,

First, let me say, I have no beef with you. As you may know, I've written (what I think of as) some very nice things about you, and mentioned your blog many times since I first discovered it. That said, I hate to be the party pooper again (and I really don't have time to take on the entire Respectful Insolence clan: TMR's becoming too popular these days for me to deal with arguments like we used to) but, since I was going to write about this "women and science" issue anyway, I might as well comment:

Look, guys/gals, y'all are on The Left. All nuance is gone for you. You don't see yourselves that way - you think, even after losing 6 of the last 8 elections, you're the mainstream - but you aren't. I know: I used to be one of you. You see any criticism of women as misogyny, like no man can be allowed to have a righteous beef - and never noticing when that position can be doing society harm. It's to your credit that you're such nice people about it, but you've got a remarkable case of tunnel-vision that's doing no one any favors - especially your sons. People can point misandry out to you; rub your noses in it, and you don't even notice. That's not a good trait to be found in scientists if you ask me. But that's how complete the brainwashing problem is in this country.

I remember once, years ago, I went out on a canoe trip with some divorced guys and at lunch they carped constantly about "bitch this" and "bitch that" and I thought they were just gross and barbaric. But - now that I'm divorced - and have seen, first hand, how power can be handed over to women so they can beat men over the head with it (whether they deserve it or not) I feel no compunction to silence myself, or any other guy, about the brazen, silly, dangerous, and soul-crushing misandry I see around me. (Like right now, as I write this, the spell check caught the word "misandry" because it has no reference for it. I checked for "misogyny" and it does - Why? The world becomes very interesting once you've had the power of the state come down on your head based on nothing but a woman's word: You start to notice these things.) Today I just did a series of posts that have a critical view of women, but do I hate women? No. I just take the same attitude as Frank Zappa: You want to be equal? You takes your lumps like everyone else. That means I don't let women walk over me and I talk about issues that involve them with the same fervor as any guy.

And many women not only "get it" but are leaders of the movement to right the wrongs of feminism: Christina Hoff Sommers (above) has already written about this science issue but I notice no one - not even Vox - has talked about her. (I suspect it's Ms. Sommers' writing on the subject that probably sparked Vox's interest, since I've had her article long before his column came out.) Does it matter to you, perspective-wise, that a woman started this?

Or when was the last time any of you science bloggers gave a conservative a tip-of-the-hat for anything? My blog moves from right to left and male to female on a regular basis - as I see fit - can you say the same? Have you noticed that the majority of abducted kids that get killed are boys - while everyone is so concerned about the safety of little girls? Have you bothered to give President Bush his due on his work for Africa? Or are you looking Condi Rice in the face - serving in the most integrated administration in U.S. history - while still mouthing Kanye West's lie that "George Bush doesn't care about black people"? Have you ever given a Christian his/her due for saying anything relevant? I have a (clearly) atheistic, anti-religion and anti-cult blog, but let anyone say anything I find worthwhile and I'll print it - religious or not. You guys, on the other hand, play favorites. And applaud yourselves for your (gulp) fascism. But you're only fooling yourselves.

World Net Daily serves a purpose just as Respectful Insolence does. And, just like you, they get some things right and some things wrong. Personally, having been flamed by your fans, WND's opinions - or just how they think in general - bother me no more or no less than what I find on your site. To me, it's just science and politics, Right and Left - wingnuts all - with no one wanting to meet anywhere near the middle. And, because of that, neither side realizes how stupid they can be - or how little we're actually getting done as a country - and that's the real tragedy as I see it.

Smell you later,

CMC

Hey, Watch Your Mouth, Mr.: My Ex Isn't Just "Anyone" - She Slept With The Homeopath That Killed Her Mother! (Great Bedside Manner!)

"If there's one type of so-called "complementary and alternative medicine" that I've always been very up front about, it's that I consider homeopathy to be the ultimate in pseudoscientific twaddle when it comes to CAM. The reasons should be obvious to anyone with a background in basic science. After all, homeopathy is nothing more than the most magical of magical thinking writ so large that it's a wonder than anyone can believe it."

Excerpted from Orac's Respectful Insolence

That's my ex (above) waving "bye-bye" to her own common sense,...

Homeopath = Liar

"To be a homeopathist, you have to be a dualist, a vitalist, and know about enough chemistry to make you dangerous. You also have to have approximately zero idea of how the scientific method actually works,...it doesn't hurt if you're a bit of a hippy-dippy syncrete, either.

You also have to be the type I refer to as a "fixer," which is generally someone who's suffused with the desire to help people (at all costs) and not enough brains, skills, or basic competence to do it very well. These types tend to become social workers, counsellors, and/or things like homeopathists, aromatherapists, or other woo-meisters. Key to pulling this one off is to be convincing (mostly because you believe it yourself) and have a pleasant demeanour (at least at first)."

- Interrobang's comment about homeopaths on Orac's Respectful Insolence blog.

"I know what you are trying to say here but for me it seems to let the practitioners of the hook to much. Many very probably do sincerely believe that what they doing is backed by evidence, and that they do indeed want to help others. The only problem is that they have no basis for holding that view. The only way they could have arrived at such a view is by a willful disregarding of how science, and medicine, works, and as such honesty is not something they can make much claim to. It is much like the situation with creationists. Creationism is not an honest position, and no one (with the exception I think of the mentally ill or mentally retarded) can hold a creationist position and make claim to be honest. There is a duty on people taking a position to understand the position they are taking. In the case of both homeopaths, and creationists, they cannot do so without ignoring masses of evidence."

- Matt Penfold's comment on the same subject.

"Homeopaths not outright liars? If not outright, they are liars nonetheless - outright deceivers in any case.

They defend themselves with the usual "pseudo-scientist" argument: If you can't prove something is impossible, then it's theoretically possible, and therefor if we posit that it's true, you can't say by your own logic that we're wrong.

That's all many who want to believe something need to give themselves permission to believe it. So the problem or question to tackle first would seem to be, why do their adherents want to believe the barely believable and how much do they want it?

And the countermeasures should involve less of a discussion of the logic of homeopathic suppositions than of the deceit involved in whatever efforts were applied that caused adherents to hope for an ultimately ridiculous prospect to begin with.

It is our nature to expect to be deceived, but we want to feel complicit in the deception - it must be of the type that reinforces our expectations. We didn't agree in advance to deception that only bolsters the deceiver's expectations."

- Royniles, adding one more comment.

Getting To the Meat Of The Issue

"I don't have a problem with vegans, although I tend to view veganism as more cultish than anything else."

- Orac, dropping the 'c' word on a movement most people wouldn't consider in that way, using Respectful Insolence

He's right, of course,...