Dr Briffa on Athletic Ancients
While browsing Dr John Briffa’s blog today, I stumbled upon this recent post. [Backup here: http://backupurl.com/6u8x3z.##] Brilliantly, Briffa’s post seems to be based entirely upon a Daily Mail article. No references to research are given and the only source he links to is the Mail. Read the rest of this entry »
The Promotion of Counterknowledge
[BPSDB] Those promoting Counterknowledge are winning. Possibly because the public actually don’t really care that much*. (Damien Thompson’s book Counterknowledge is available from local libraries in my area, yet I am the first person in the 14 months since it has been in the library catalogue to borrow it.) It is also possible that Counterknowledge is spreading at least partly because people with a measure of influence in society are among those who promote it. Members of the British royal family, politicians, the mainstream media, celebrities, Alternative Medicine practitioners posing as authority figures, members of churches, and even universities have helped to promote Counterknowledge. Not to mention maverick scientists such as Andrew Wakefield. Those with less authority are playing an important part too, though. For example, full-time conspiracy theorists such as the owner of the whale.to website are disseminating bullshit that is reproduced on forums such as What Doctors Don’t Tell You, or JABS. Read the rest of this entry »
AltMed Support for Wakefield Continues
[BPSDB]
Following in the footsteps of other alternative types, such as Patrick Holford, Dr Joseph Mercola has joined the fray. Holford has previously exhorted his followers to sign a petition in support of Dr Andrew Wakefield (see breathspakids for more detail) and Joseph Mercola’s fellow medic-with-an-interest-in-nutrition Dr John Briffa has also indulged in some MMR scaremongering of his own (Briffa’s original post), which I covered here, here, and here [note: the first of my blog posts includes links to many other blogs covering Briffa’s views]. Read the rest of this entry »
Briffa On Fluoridation
Dr John Briffa has a blog. His latest post is about fluoridation. I think I agree with Dr Briffa on some points: for one thing, it seems to me that the benefits of fluoridation are often overstated; there is also the issue of informed consent. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of “mass medication” where those being medicated have not been given a choice. If people wish to avoid fluoride-supplemented water then, ideally, I think they should be free to do so. Read the rest of this entry »
Dr Briffa: An Expert on the Causes of Autism?
“I always thought that Dr John Briffa was like a more grown-up version of Patrick Holford… now he’s blown it.” If these words seem familiar, perhaps it’s because you’ve read them before.
The last time I wrote those words, I was looking at a blog post of Briffa’s where he was scaremongering about the MMR vaccine causing autism. This time it’s rainfall (no, seriously). Read the rest of this entry »
Briffa on Statins and CoenzymeQ10
Old news, I know – but it is one of Briffa’s hobby horses (not to mention Cybertiger, for those JABS aficionados reading this) and I happened upon an internet forum discussion that was linking to Briffa’s blog. His blog post contained this gem: Read the rest of this entry »
An Idea Relating To Dr John Briffa’s Current Favourite Homeopathy Study (Arnica “Effective”)
I recently wrote about Dr John Briffa, making reference to his approving comments about a study into arnica as a post-operative aid. I had an idea that homeopathic treatments like arnica relied on the placebo effect and was surprised to see that Briffa’s post described arnica as “effective”. Read the rest of this entry »
Dr John Briffa – Alternative
John Briffa is a doctor who writes diet books and formulates pills for food supplement companies. Briffa has recently blogged about arnica, which doesn’t seem to make sense. He makes his living from nutritionism, not homeopathy – so why support homeopathy by praising a study into arnica? Read the rest of this entry »
Blogging the Bible
Genesis, Chapter 1; Verses 1, 3 and 4.
1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1.3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1.4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Firstly – God created the heaven and earth before he created light? Bloomin’ show-off. Somebody should have told him nobody likes a smart-arse. I mean, it wasn’t enough to create the heaven and the earth – he had to do it in the dark. [Hm, actually that gives me an idea for a bumper sticker.] I haven’t figured out how God split the light from the darkness, but I’m going to email the Pope if I can find his address. Apparently he’s infallible, so his answer must be reliable.
Secondly – God created the light and saw “that it was good”? Sounds like pride to me. Which just happens to be one of the seven deadly sins. What’s all that about? If the seven sins are that bad, how come God gets to break them? Still, nobody’s perfect.
And there’s more. Actually, hang on. This is a bit boring really. Isn’t it? Taking the piss out of a 2,000-year-old book that only a few readers actually take as being meant literally, a book that is basically some rather nice bits of poetry and short stories mixed in with a few rules that perhaps made sense to people 2,000 years ago in the Middle-East and some really basic moral rules like “don’t murder people” (and some rules that may have been born of common-sense but probably aren’t all that useful now, though I don’t know enough about 2,000-year-old eating habits so probably shouldn’t comment on the erstwhile usefulness of the Bible’s dietary rules). A book that has just prompted me to write a stupidly long sentence. And a book that has been covered with far more humour by the likes of Ricky Gervais and Bill Hicks than by me. The question is – is there still a point in remarking on the inconsistencies in the Bible. Another question might be – is it still funny to take the piss out of the Bible? Is it as funny as taking the piss out of the Organon. At least that’s only a 200-year-old book of fiction, so it’s more modern than the Bible if nothing else. And the funny dietary advice (restrictions, mostly) in the bible? No dafter that the supposedly scientific dietary advice of Visiting Professors, Medical Doctors and PhD Doctors. Heh, the holy trinity of nutritionism = Holford, McKeith and Briffa. Is it worth blogging about religion on sites like mine unless it is a case of a religion or spokesperson for a religion saying something ridiculous and/or harmful amd that has at least some import (e.g., Frankenstein-type comments from Chimera Fearers pre- the embryo research bill)?
Stuff And Nonsense 