Conspiracy Theorists Attack Organic Food Study

September 11, 2012 at 10:58 am (Conspiracy)

A systematic review of research into organic foods and conventional alternatives by Smith-Spangler et al has been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, discussed at Science-Based Medicine in a post by Steven Novella and attacked as “flawed” by the the Natural Society website. There is now a petition, apparently authored by Mike Adams, The Health Ranger & Anthony Gucciardi. The claim that the study is flawed is, um, interestingly argued. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 6 Comments

The BMJ: Rabid Responses and Competing Interests

May 29, 2010 at 2:07 pm (Anti-Vaccination, Conspiracy, Nutritionism, Patrick Holford, Supplements) (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , )

A recent article in the BMJ attracted comment from the drearily ubiquitous John Stone (known to some as “the Pope of Jabs”). This comment on competing interests reminded me of Patrick Holford’s foray into the rabid responses section. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 17 Comments

Targets: Aids, Cancer, Autism and Dyslexia

April 23, 2009 at 9:59 pm (Bad Science, Conspiracy, Dangerously Wrong, Homeopathy, Nutritionism, Patrick Holford) (, , , , , , , , , , )

Some fields seem to attract quackery. Energy production is an obvious one (I predict that the idea of perpetual motion machines will never die – the idea is too attractive and there will probably always be sufficiently gullible/ignorant people in the world), but there are certain fields which seem to attract medical quackery more than others. I thought I’d list a few of the apparent similarities between some of the areas that I see as attracting quackery or, at best, dubious claims. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 6 Comments

The Promotion of Counterknowledge

March 24, 2009 at 6:09 pm (Alternative Medicine, Anti-Vaccination, Bad Science, Bloggers, Briffa, Conspiracy, Dangerously Wrong, government, Media, Nutritionism, Patrick Holford, Religion, Supplements, Woo) (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , )

[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 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 »

Permalink 5 Comments

Innumeracy in Numerology: 9/11 Conspiracy

March 5, 2009 at 9:23 pm (Conspiracy) (, , )

Briefly: I’ve come across a website that claims that:

The Number 11 Mysteriously Dominates the Events of
the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks in the USA.

Now, obviously it is easy to find links to a number if you try hard enough. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 17 Comments

Briffa On Fluoridation

February 28, 2009 at 9:31 pm (Briffa, Conspiracy) (, , , , , , , , , , , )

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 »

Permalink 8 Comments

Daily Mail: Hypocritical Morons

February 19, 2009 at 9:29 pm (Anti-Vaccination, Bad Science, Conspiracy, Dangerously Wrong, Media) (, , , , , , , , , )

The Daily Fail has now printed an opinion piece that calls parents who failed to vaccinate their children “refuseniks” and – it gets better – “morons”. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 11 Comments

Conspiracy Theories Abound

January 26, 2009 at 10:13 pm (Bad Science, Conspiracy) (, , , , , , )

Hudson Bay, 9/11, the New World Order, anything on the website… conspiracy theories are all around us. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 7 Comments

Science Museum Refers Parents to JABS [Updated]

December 17, 2008 at 1:37 pm (Anti-Vaccination, Conspiracy) (, , , )

As Dr* T told us on Tuesday, the Science Museum has some dodgy info on MMR on its website. They quote leading lights of the anti-vaccination movement, such as Jackie Fletcher of JABS, and provide an email address for worried parents. The email address is for the JABS anti-vaccine pressure group. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 2 Comments

This Post is Dedicated to…

June 25, 2008 at 1:23 pm (Anti-Vaccination, Big Pharma, Conspiracy, Fun, Miscellaneous, Trivial) (, , , )

Everyone who has been slated by John Scudamore on The pharma gang and shill pages are my favourites. Frankly, I’m a bit gutted that I don’t get a mention – I’ll have to be more vocal in my criticism of JABS and Whale in future. Richard Doll is a shill (as are Ernst and Goldacre) so I don’t think it would be appropriate for someone of my limited talents to be listed on that page, but how about a mention on the ‘pharma gang’ page John? Honestly – it would be like a badge of honour for me. The really interesting thing is that one name on the pharma gang page is John Stone. Is it a mistake or are there ideological differences (and perhaps even ‘trust issues’) in the JABS camp? Just in case it is a mistake and John Scudamore realises his error, I’ve JKN’d the page here.

Permalink 8 Comments

Next page »