I believe in science! What?!?

It is the year 2016 and Hillary Clinton’s nomination acceptance speech contained the simple phrase: “I believe in science”. She punctuated it with a chuckle while the audience roared its support. “I believe that climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs.” She had to laugh quietly to herself because the reaction was so startlingly positive. [1]

This is the new era of scientific religion.

One must believe in it.

It is so clear that people now clearly say so, openly.

It does not matter whether you understand it or not.

It only matters that the priests (scientists) said so.

Once upon a time we had a religion which was proved day and night into our hearts. Now we have bosons and dark matter and elusive parallel universes which can never touch us in any tangible way.

Once upon a time we had true science.

Now we have religion.

Militant Science (or else: Paid science)

Science today has nothing to do with science in the “good old days” of Newton, when people curious about how the cosmos worked tried to reach the “truth” by endless analysis and thinking on various topics.

Today science is more of a tool for politicians and people in power to promote specific agendas. Anyone having in mind the “crazy” scientist who just sits down in his dark lab doing weird experiments even at the expense of his own life just in order to discover something without any personal gain, is… out of his mind.

Today scientists follow orders. Orders issues by the people who pay. As simple as that. In order to perform high-end science today one must be enlisted as member to a high-end research facility, which in turn needs billions to run and – thus – is tied closely to someone who has… what else? Billions.

Of course politics could not be missing from the party. Politics which is again linked to what else than money. And guess what. People with money do not care about the “truth”. People with money do not care about what is “right” or what is “moral”. These things do not even compute for these people.

Below there is a list with examples of militant (paid) science.

The purpose of this article is not to offer an in depth analysis of these examples, since not such an analysis is needed. These examples are so obviously irrational, immoral or simply wrong, that even a 10-year old child can see through them. The purpose of this article is to make people think by just showing the obvious and exposing the ways militant (paid) science today is massively promoting irrational or immoral ideas. The idea is that by just seeing the list one can suddenly have an enlightenment and understand what was all the time in front of his very eyes…


1. Abortion is found to have little effect on women’s mental health

There is actual a research which shows that having an abortion does not have an effect on one’s mental health! (source) So in other words, in a world where we seem to accept that even…bacteria affect us, we are certain and we have “proved” (what an irrational word) that killing a baby by our free will does not have any… effect on us. Irrational immoral science. Meet science of the 21st century.

2. Having two homosexual parents has no effect on kids’ mental health

Liberal politics has been making that statement for so long, that is was actually a matter of time before this was “proved” by science as well. Because do not forget: Even Hitler had scientific “evidence” and “proof” that Jews were inferior and, thus, deserved to die. Now we have many “independent” research showing that growing up with two mothers or with two fathers is perfectly OK for the child. And this despite the fact that not so long ago psychology raised the alarm of mental problems for kids with “just” parents who divorced! Believe in science! It is the new religion. (and religion linked with politics is the best way for the latter to stay in place) No, the kids are NOT alright

3. Agrochemical field paid research

The field of agriculture is a multi-billion dollar business with a lot of room for data tampering and conclusions management. One recent example was the case of James Cresswell, an expert in flowers and bees at the University of Exeter in England, who worked for Syngenta. He was paid and instructed to draw the… ‘proper’ conclusions regarding the cause of bees’ deaths. (source) [read on 2017-01-04] Companies pay millions of dollars to draw whatever conclusions they like regarding the safety of their new genetically engineered products and we just have to accept them because it is… “science”.

4. Paid Medical practitioners

Two-thirds of Americans see doctors who got paid by drug companies. (source) [read on 2017-03-06] Now, this is civilization. I wouldn’t like going to a doctor to some “primitive” place or during some “primitive” era where doctors just practiced medicine in order to… save people based on what their god dictated. That was religious hocus pocus and I will not have it! I like progress! I mean money.

5. Antidepressants and pregnancy [2017-04-23]

A study shows that autism and ADHD risk are not linked to prenatal exposure to antidepressants. (source) There you go. All medicine is bad for the pregnant woman, except the ones which are advertised by our drug companies as “necessary” to keep our “modern” way of living. One antidepressant the day , makes life go away…

6. Mobile phones and cancer? [2017-04-23]

Do you think that having a thing which emits and consumes radiation on your head for many hours per day harms you? Do not sweat. Science has “proved” that this not the case. (source) And until science “proves” something it is not true. No need to discuss about the obvious here: The fact that nothing can be proved 100%, the fact that modern science cherry picks facts to support what big corporations feed the people as “necessary” and so on. A simple “LOL” will suffice.

7. Climate change [2017-06-24]

Do you think there is a scientific “consensus” on global warming? Think again. And before you do, follow the money. The founder of the Weather Channel says it eloquently enough: Only research which deal with climate change are funded. (see video here) So how can we have research speaking against climate change?

~ To be continued (stay tuned)

Homeopathy works: Arguments in favor of the effectiveness of homeopathy and against scientific dogmatism.

~ Notes for easy reading ~

  • Go directly to Chapter IV. Arguments in favor of homeopathy… in order to find resources & bibliography related to the effectiveness of homeopathy
  • Go to Chapter III to read about the philosophy behind the debate on homeopathy
  • Go to Chapter V. Arguments against the effectiveness of conventional medicine to read about issues in proving that current conventional medicine is effective

DISCLAIMER: This is not a medical advice article. It is not supposed to replace your doctor. It is just supposed to offer an opinion – mostly related to the philosophy of medicine.

I. Introduction

A lot of discussion has been going on lately for the effectiveness of homeopathy, especially in the light of the US FTC which wants all homeopathic drugs to clearly state that (1) there is no scientific evidence that the product works and (2) the product’s claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700’s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts. [source]

II. The battle ground…

In simple words: The all mighty scientific community backed up by multi-billion turnover pharmaceutical industries and by politicians which have been lobbying for it for hundreds of years is afraid of some ultra diluted non-medicines which do nothing and yet have miraculously convinced billions of people that they work.

We are talking of a very weird battle here…

A battle which has the same goal that almost every battle that recent (from the enlightenment) western “civilization” fought had: MONEY. And there is a lot of money in the medicine business to just give it all up to some weird people who claim they can cure people without using methods approved by the system.

Analyzing the scenes behind this battle is really interesting and helps pinpoint deeper issues with the way we think nowadays.

III. The philosophy behind the debate…

In order for to fully understand the reasons behind all this, one needs to dig deep. But not too deep. Just 500 years or so. Ever since the case of Galileo science has differentiated from religion in a highly aggressive way. And the revolution of “enlightenment” (yes, it was not actually enlightenment – read Against Enlightenment: The Enlightenment was not light. The Enlightenment is darkness. for more on that) made that differentiation even more solid by promoting specific atheistic ways of thinking in order to fight the so called religious establishment of the day. It is not the purpose of the article to analyze whether Christian religion is good or bad. It is good. (search articles related to here for that) Neither to analyze if the Middle Ages were dark. They were not. (check Middle Ages – An era of light! for that)

No you do not have to analyze all that in order to understand the prejudice against homeopathy and other alternative ways of medicine. All you need to keep out of this is that since the “enlightenment” the materialistic dogma spread like fire. And found fertile ground in the minds of people filled with hate for anything Christian. People who were usually philosophically illiterate and ignorant and who could not tell the difference between a good advice (Love your enemies) and a dogma (Everything is matter) even if it was in front of their face.

Related tags in Harmonia Philosophica: ,

Dogmas, dogmas, dogmas…

Modern science is based on specific philosophical dogmas with the most prominent of these being MATERIALISM. Materialism (a.k.a. everything is matter and nothing else exists) supports the (dogmatic) idea that the universe is more like a machine with material parts working like gears in a machine. This notion is then applied to humans as well, leading to various misconceptions regarding our very nature. And ALL THESE are based on the best dogma of them all: The dogma which says that we are nothing but dust specks. The dogma which wants the universe to exist for no reason at all. The dogma which calls for miraculous random processes resulting in extremely well designed processes that would put the best clock-maker at shame.

Related Harmonia Philosophica tags: ,

These philosophical dogmas are highly compatible with pharmaceutical industries and highly incompatible with any belief that humans can heal with any other way than the traditional “fix the machine” recipe. All the multi-billion pharmaceutical industries rely their business upon the mechanistic view of life: Take a pill and everything will be alright. Understanding this will make it easier for you to understand the hatred of people in this industry for anything different. Admitting that alternative (non materialistic, spiritual, non mechanistic) ways of healing could work would LITERALLY undermine the whole structure of medicine as we know it.

IV. Arguments in favor of homeopathy…

General considerations

Homeopathy is a different way of healing. Thus, special considerations must be kept in mind when discussing about it. Even though classic research has shown (see below) that homeopathy works, one must always bear in mind that homeopathy refers to treatment which is always tailored to the specific patient. It is not a “One pill to cure them all” method of healing. And despite that, as mentioned above, clinical trials have showed that homeopathy is effective, it is crucial to remember that sometimes a research might not show extensive positive results to ALL patients in a sample simply because you cannot take a homeopathic treatment recipe and use it everywhere as-is. And it is also important to understand that this is not a disadvantage of homeopathy. To the contrary: Treating every patient as an exceptional case is the right way to go. Conventional medicine is now trying to become more personalized, thus following the path of homeopathy.

Relative resources about the effectiveness of homeopathy

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of homeopathy have shown that homeopathy works after all. Four of five major comprehensive reviews of RCTs in homeopathy have reached broadly positive conclusions. In general, there is evidence that homeopathy works, as long as someone is ready to search for it.

Some relative resources or related articles:

  • Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834–43.
  • Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. Br Med J 1991; 302: 316–23.
  • Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 631–6. (refers to positive outcomes of homeopathy – but the article is mainly related to the effect of the quality of the research to the effects reported)
  • Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy – A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 27–33. (results in low positive effect conclusion)
  • List of research showing the effectiveness of homeopathy
  • Article explaining that homeopathy works
  • The people next to you: Go ahead and ask. Someone really close to you has been cured with homeopathy.
  • Homeopathy. “Meta”-studies. Dogmatism. (how the studies on homeopathy are biased)

The Swiss report

In late 2011, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland’s national health insurance program.

And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called “internal validity”) and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called “external validity”). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not “work,” the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy… or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).

The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in “evidence based medicine”, has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were “unscientific” or “unproven” because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.

Source: Homeopathy in Healthcare – Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs, Gudrun Bornhöft MD, Prof. Peter F. Matthiessen MD, PhD, 2011

V. Arguments against the effectiveness of conventional medicine

An analysis of 3,000 common treatments several years ago and found that only 11% were proven to be beneficial. It found that 51% were of unknown efficacy and the other 38% were either harmful or a toss up between harm and help. [Source]

A report by a watchdog group published on 31 May in QuarterWatch  calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing “serious, disabling, or fatal injuries,” including 128,000 deaths. [source]

A related article in Harmonia Philosophica titled “Does medicine actually help? [Cure rates and Philosophy analysis of mainstream and alternative medicine]” also shows the same thing. The effectiveness of classical medicine is not as sound as people think it is. Apply the same rigid standards which you apply to homeopathy in classical medicine and you will end up with no treatment that is “proved” beneficial. Not to mention that other research show equally disturbing facts: For example did you know that when doctors are on strike, the mortality rate stays the same or, many times, falls?!? (source) Or that doctors who are diagnosed with terminal cancer usually choose NOT to have any therapy at all despite they advise their patients otherwise? (source)

Did you know how and why the traditional way of healing in ancient Greece (at the temples of Aeschylus) was banned? Well, it just did when the Romans occupied Greece. No research conducted. No questions asked. They just DECIDED that it did not work, even though IT DID for thousands of years.

Did you know how and why the traditional way of healing in America (practiced by the indigenous Indians) was banned? Well, it just did when the Europeans occupied the whole continent of America. No research conducted. No questions asked. They just DECIDED that it did not work, even though IT DID for thousands of years.

So a good question is “Will the FDA/FTC enforce the same requirements on the thousands of conventional treatments which have been proven to be of no benefit?”…

All in all…

Ask your doctor. But also make your own research. Do not trust what you read or hear from others blindly. But trust what you already know. You do not want to wait for someone else to tell you what you already feel…

(applies especially for philosophy, for medicine having a good doctor and knowing how to read scientific papers also helps)

Oil spills, purple elephants, science as a tool of politics.

Oil glistens on the Gulf of Mexico in late spring 2010, over a month after the Deepwater Horizon spill began. The photo was taken from a research vessel that scientists used to studied methane consumption by microbes in the ocean. The photo shows an area roughly 3 meters on a side.

Much of the methane released by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout hung around until the end of that year. In a new study of data collected in the months after the spill, scientists report that the numbers of methane-munching microbes plummeted while the gas was still abundant. The result contradicts an earlier report, which suggested that the bacteria rapidly got rid of the seawater’s methane. (1)

In the picture one can see the spill’s aftereffects: Oil glistens on the Gulf of Mexico in late spring 2010, over a month after the Deepwater Horizon spill began. The photo was taken from a research vessel that scientists used to studied methane consumption by microbes in the ocean. The photo shows an area roughly 3 meters on a side.

It is actually amazing if you think about it.

After the “greatest ecological catastrophes of all time” and the unimaginable result of the “oil spill” cleaning itself (!), scientists are now trying to convince us that the disaster was indeed great! Long AFTER the disaster has passed over, they try to make us understand that what the whole world saw was not like… what we saw.

Mark my words.

In a few years they will have “scientific” papers “proving” that the oil spill never went away!

Science is the best tool of politics.

Given a good lab and some in depth analysis, you can prove that even a giant purple elephant was spilled into the Gulf along with the “invisible” oil…

Science without compass. A dangerous thing…

A defiant Yoweri Museveni has responded to U.S. President Barack Obama’s criticism of Uganda’s pending Anti-Homosexuality Bill by stating that he intends to sign it into law as soon as a scientific committee has completed its work. In a letter to Obama dated 18 February Museveni, Uganda’s president, defends the bill, which would introduce life sentences for so-called “aggravated homosexuality” with minors or in cases of rape, and terms of 7 to 14 years for attempted or actual homosexual activity. (source)

Science is useful.

To support the conclusions you have already concluded…
Isn’t that what we always do?

Who truly seeks the truth, without any prejudices or dogmas?
Who does truly seek the truth without already knowing the truth?

Our axioms are based on air. The air we like breathing…
Choose different ones and you will end up where you want.

A truth seeking system without a compass (a.k.a. religion) can guarantee that…

Exit mobile version