But let's just cast that all aside, just for a minute shall we?
What if we were to simply give in? What if we threw our hands up and said "yeah sure, you can have prescriptive rights... but this one is on you when it goes bad."
Before I go further, let me be clear: What I am proposing here would be a lousy tactic for those of us in favour of reason to submit to employing. It is lazy, but it may be all we have left when the dust settles. The only version of this that results in good things comes from wearing so many pairs of rose coloured glasses as to block out the light of reason. The reality is that for this tactic to have a positive social effect, someone - and really that means "some-many" will get hurt, probably die, first.
But lets look down that road, shall we?
Some NDs are crying out that this is a necessary step towards better regulation of Naturopathy (which is, if you ask me, putting the cart before the horse, but let's take the argument at face value).
Okay - great. So how is this going to work then? Are Naturopaths going to have an oversight committee that enforces standards? That de-licenses all those sham-NDs who practice the treatments that fall into the 'bogus' territory of the ND's tool-kit? That penalizes those who are found to be using herbal remedies that have not been rigorously tested and manufactured with a strict care for consistency?
Is there going to be a tracking system put in place so that when a patient goes to an ND first, and then when the treatment they recieve fails to work and they go to Emergency, un-healed, possibly hurt, maybe even die in the hospital as a result of Naturopathic negligence that the culpability flow-chart includes the Naturopath? Make no mistake - currently a lot of people who meet their button-maker as a result of failures in Naturopathy end up doing so on the statistical report-card of the medical establishment.
Will all naturopathic remedies need to be prescribed so that people who oversee drug conflicts (pharmacists) are kept in the loop?
It may be a bit cynically Polly-Anna-ish of me, but I think in the long-game this may actually be regulated in a defacto manner by the inurance companies. They aren't dummies. Their particular gambling game is all about weighing the odds and pricing their services at a level that (god forbid) makes them money. In order to do that competitively they need to factor reality into the equation. Treating placebos as medicine will only put them out of business. With an inevitably higher incident of malpractice, the insurers will have to charge NDs higher premiums. This cost will get passed on to the user. In the end, who do you want to give your money to? The doctor whose practices work and is (relatively) cheap? Or the quack who has to financially soak you, just to stay in business?
Either way, NDs will eventually be pushed into a position of better practices. Eventually we may be able to call them doctors with out the qualifier. It happened to osteopaths, it seems to maybe happening to Chiropractors. (If so it is happening at a glacial pace.) If you want legitimacy, you gotta wear the yoke that comes with it!
This is a slow road to follow, and it will be marked by tragedy along the way. It is not the best solution. The world would be a far better place if we could bring the Grendel down at the start of it's rampage.
Do you recall the Saturday Night Live sketch where Michael Dukakis is debating the future Bush 41 and he comments to himself "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy"?
Welcome to the sissyphian world of skepticism.
The ridiculously inept arguments of the 'other' side are head-smacking in their quality.
Today fellow Skeptic North blogger Scott was published in the National Post. It was an article he had written for SN that was re-posted in the newspaper.
Now, I'm not so naive as to think that naturopaths would lie down and take this criticism, but I clearly over estimated their ability to fight back cogently.
The Roberts Centre of Integrative Medicine wrote this response - which conveniently includes the response of the OAND (Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors); allowing me to kill two birds with one stone.
While it is reasonably literate - no classic web-fails like using 'then' when they mean 'than' - it doesn't even manage to put up a realistic fight. It is a 'nyah nyah' away from being childish. If they weren't so painfully - dangerously - wrong, it would feel like kicking a puppy to point out how fundamentally stupid their response is.
"Highly Biased" - Well it IS an opinion piece, so I'm not sure what they are complaining about. Perhaps they are taking umbrage with the use of facts to express a position of science - a tactic that they are all but incapable of utilizing? To say nothing of the fact that their response is... yes - highly biased. And in their case devoid of actual science to back it up.
They go one to make claims about "botanical and nutritional medicines... being placed on prescription-only schedules" specifically "higher dosages of Vitamin D" and utterly fail to provide a single reference (let alone link) to any of their evidence. But while we're at it, why did they ask to prescribe anti-biotics, anti-virals, and anti-inflammatories and Suzane Somer's bioidentical hormones?
I particularly love this sly ad hominem attack:
Becoming an ND requires eight years of education and training, including a university pre-med degree and a four-year naturopathic program. This compares to the five years in total required to become a pharmacist.
Wahh wahh! You wasted your time and money on a sub-par education. That doesn't make your magic work, Slytherin. A person could devote their life to studying yogic-flying (and some do) and they'd still need a trampoline to make it work. There is a reason we would prefer to be represented in court by a Harvard graduate, than by Uncle Ted, who got his degree from a matchbook. If they wanted to prescribe real medicine, perhaps they should have taken the short-cut and studied to be pharmacists!
They go right back to hypocritic (not to be confused with hippocratic - at all) ad hominem attacks that do little to advance their argument; accusing him of fearmongering and misleading the public. If they themselves had not been so direly misled, then I wouldn't even have to address the well-poisoning cartoon they add to the article. Hover your mouse over it and what will it say? "Conflict of interest." Need I point out how many NDs sell the very products they prescribe? And to add to that, they aren't even thinking straight. If NDs are given the power of pharmaceutical prescription - which they are simultaneously fighting for and making the specious argument that "conventional medicine [has a] high reliance on pharmaceuticals" - the pharmacists, including the very one they are attacking, will be filling the NDs prescriptions. The argument is ludicrous.
Here's another post that has cropped up. I wish I had time to deal with it, but there is only so much time I have for inanity.
Way back, four months ago, when I started down the road of publically exploring the ideas I had around asshole skepticism, one of my earliest posts took a swipe at outlining what exactly it is I am working towards.
Much or most of what I talked about in that post still applies, but as far as a simple definition, it fails.
Tonight I was on my way home from Pub Quiz night (we were kicking asses and taking names until the last four questions) and thinking about content for a new post idea I had. It has been a while since I last addressed the mandate, so I was thinking about an aspect of that, when out of the blue... I don't recall precisely where (did I mention the pub?) I found myself all but blurting out what strikes me as the core of asshole skepticism. It's not that anything else I have said is wrong, but somehow I just don't think I've ever before managed to put my finger on my precise intent.
So I am hereby casting my other post aside - though it shall follow soon - and taking this opportunity to state my intention in as specific terms as I have thus far identified.
~ahem~
Asshole skepticism is the effort to state and in so doing spread the essence, sub-components and outcomes of the process of skepticism in the most forceful manner possible without a net loss of outreach.
Uh, yeah. There it is.
So shall I state that again in slightly less condensed, but possibly easier to follow terms?
"Asshole skepticism is the effort to state and in so doing spread..."
I think that that is fairly straight forward, but: The intent of asshole skepticism is to spread the gospel of skepticism... perhaps I shouldn't use the word 'gospel', but it make me laugh - and laughter is a good medium for outreach.
"...the essence, sub-components and out comes of the process of skepticism..."
Pretty much trying to encompass everything skeptical in that. "The Essence" being just about anything that any skeptic has zeroed in on as their own personal definition of what skepticism is - there are many versions and I haven't got a definitive one of my own yet. The "sub-components" being virtually any of our tools and concepts of process - be they Occam's Razor, logical fallacies, the failures of perception and memory or the scientific method. (Feel free to add to that list as necessary.) The "Out comes" being any of the conclusions of skepticism be they obvious to most - I.E. The Sasquatch is a figment of true believers' desire; or in the realm of PSAs - I.E. For Pete's sake quit listening to Jenny McCarthy and go get vaccinated.
"...In the most forceful manner possible without a net loss of outreach."
That may be the most tricky part to follow.
I believe that we should be stating our beliefs, understandings, and goals as stridently as possible - with the caveat that there is a point at which we start alienating people. But I fimly believe that far too many of our numbers severely overstate the fragility of the situation. We can and should promote our goals in the strongest manner we can, under the understanding that we will lose some people and in the spirit of triage must afford to lose some in order to help the greatest number.
Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
- Mr. Spock.
Yeah. Had to go there. Geek on.
It is true. Many skeptics take too much pain in trying to not offend anyone and miss the point that in so doing we are letting many people slip through the cracks in a weakly stated message. It's a tenuous position. We can't slip into a place where we are failing to present the truth. We must always promote/direct people towards accurate information and towards a state of being able to identify reality as we best understand it as a race. And that is a narrow tightrope to walk.
It was a big weekend of woo at the movie theatres this past week. I had been looking forward to getting out to see both 2012 and The Men Who Stare at Goats so I could do reviews for Skeptic North, but life interfered. My mom was in hospital for some scheduled surgery which understandably took a well deserved chunk out of my weekend.
So I wrote a totally irrelevant article when I had the chance. And then late Sunday the clouds parted and I suddenly found myself sitting in the theatre watching The Men Who Stare at Goats and thinking that I might even get to go see 2012 before the weekend was truly over... and I did!
And now, a few days of pondering and one epic behind the scenes Skeptic North chat later I'm ready to do some review and comparison... even if it's a few days behind the curve. It's also not on Skeptic North - the 'irrelevant post' fulfills my quota over there for now, and I'm feeling like I'm neglecting this blog. Besides, doing a review here lets me use bad words and worry less about form.
There is a clear connection between these two films in that they are both of skeptical interest. Both also start stronger than they end, but that is about as far as the similarities go.
In MWSG the skeptics are right. (IMO – there is some disagreement – see below.) In 2012 the skeptics are wrong.
In MWSG the film never quite fails utterly. 2012 has squandered all its stock by the halfway point. MWSG knows it's place in absurdity. 2012 pretends to, but is sadly misguided. MWSG is saved by nothing less than a bravura performance by its star. 2012 has several stars ostensibly at the helm and only one even comes close... but still fails...
Okay, one at a time. I'll start with the good, 'cause the bad is more fun. Be Warned: Thar be Spoilers Beyond this Point.
The Men Who Stare at Goats is ultimately a pretty good film. It inevitably reminded me of Three Kings. Not only is Clooney going back to the Middle East for the third time (Syriana – which he won an Oscar for, I might add) but he is doing so in a film that is quirky and had me wondering where the fuck it was going from one second to the next.
Clooney is awesome in this film. His character, Lyn Cassady is a cap-full of whack and Clooney commits to it with all the devotion that Cassady devotes to his belief in his own psychic powers.
Oh yeah... I forgot – the plot: Ewan MacGregor is Bob Wilton, a journalist who ends up in Iraq following Cassady on a mission. Cassady is a former member of the New Earth Army – a group of US soldiers recruited and trained in psychic warfare by Bill Django. Half the movie is Bob and Lyn's haphazard adventure; the other half is Lyn's back story.
MacGregor is worthy of his role, and manages to admirably not play the meta-joke of an extended conversation with Clooney wherein Lyn tries to explain to Bob what a "Jedi" is. I was giggling feverishly throughout that, and I wouldn't have if for a moment I had got the feeling that they were winking at me.
MacGregor isn't the only stunt casting in the film. Jeff Bridges plays The Dude... er no – he plays Django. Django is absolutely not The Dude, but comparisons are inevitable simply because its Bridges playing the flake.
Add in Kevin Spacey and they have a nice trio of Best Supporting bookends.
And it's all very loosely based on the book by the same name by Jon Ronson. I haven't read the book, but very seems to be the key word. Though to my understanding a straight adaptation of the book would hardly make a movie of any sort except perhaps a documentary – which is a separate discussion really. The film starts off by announcing loud and clear that "More of this is true than what you might imagine." Which despite what it is literally saying, is clearly implying that a significant part of what follows is complete fabricated bullshit.
Such delightful bullshit it is. I spent roughly the first three quarters of the film not knowing where it was going next, and loving every moment of it. I can pretty much pinpoint the moment that the fun of having no idea where the film is going ended with a bang... literally. Cassady and Wilton's fourth or fifth ride comes to an end when they hit an IED. I was not expecting that at all. I even blurted out "Whoa..." in the theatre. It was the last time the film surprised me. As my cousin stated last night when we were discussing the film, the film didn't know where it was going. I think that's fair. Perhaps more precisely, it didn't know how to wrap itself up. The film, like the car that hits the IED comes to a screeching halt. The pace in the home stretch lags, and the film tries too hard to serve both the Hollywood ending master, while not giving up its skeptical cred.
There is some argument out there that the film fails to maintain its skeptical position. One of my Skeptic North collaborators stands firm that the film sides on the position that Cassady does in fact have psychic powers. I cede that the interpretation is there to be made and is indeed the easiest choice a viewer can make. But I think the film is smarter than that.
Specifically, Cassady practices 'cloud bursting' successfully. Well, he does attempt cloud bursting and eventually the cloud breaks up... but anyone with skeptical acumen will recognize that if you stare at a cloud long enough it is going to break up. It is going to break up if you aren't staring at it too. All one has to do is wait – you'll get the 'confirmation' eventually. In the film we don't have the luxury of time. We must move on, so through the magic of editing the cloud breaks up fairly quickly. Wilton doesn't call him on his bullshit, but I'm going to play the artist card and lay down on the notion that it's far more interesting a film if we are forced to make our own conclusions and interpret his response ourselves.
Cassady successfully stares at a goat. I should clarify. He stares at a goat 'til it dies. Ultimately this is the same argument as the cloud bursting – it's merely less likely that the goat will die in any given moment. But further than this, the titular incident happens in a flash back – which though never explicitly said, is clearly the interpretation of what Cassady has told Wilton. Who knows what really happened. Even if the goat did die there are a barnyard full of possible explanations that are far more likely than Cassady's intense stare. I didn't for a moment interpret this as the gospel truth in the eyes of the storyteller.
When Cassady reveals that he has been the recipient of the 'death touch' – which has yet to have any effect on him – Wilton's response is un mistakable incredulity, and from this point onwards there is precisely zero representation of successful psychic practice (barring the bookend, which I shall deal with separately below). Indeed, when the travellers reach their destination – a military base where Cassady's former New Earth Army cohorts are involved in odd, but decidedly un-psychic or even paranormal pursuits – some nutty but very real-world ideas are all that is left of their former outfit.
Spacey's character by all appearances seems to be a charlatan (unlike the others who are true believers) and nothing he does ever falls outside the realm of sleight of hand, mentalism and/or the standard grab-bag of faux psychic tricks like cold reading employed by Sylvia Browne. Should it be a surprise that his pragmatic manipulation rises to the top of the heap and he become the new leader of the New Earth Army remnant? It all leads me to the conclusion that the film – though not outright saying so – ultimately takes the skeptical stance.
The film is bookended by two attempts at displacing one's molecules and running through a wall. In the first case Brigadier General Hopgood finds himself on his ass on the failure-side of the wall, stunned. At the end of the film Wilton keeps right on going through the wall and into the film's final credit sequence. This is the one point in the film that I feel cannot be cleanly explained by a skeptical position on the part of the director Grant Heslov. I'm not going to make the argument that it was a strong artistic choice, but I do think it is a defensible choice. Several other artist friends of mine and I believe that the audience at least wants to have the illusion of structural flourish in their art. And I do believe that this is an illusion, not actual cleverness. Bookending is a simple trick, but it is tried and true, and even when executed poorly it can go a long way towards creating a false sense of structural completeness. To that end I am led to declare that Wilton walking through the wall is, once the decision to use these scenes as the bookends, the best option. It gives a patina of 'feel good' to the movie, where MacGregor landing on his ass would simply be playing the same note over again from the beginning. Take it a step further and you can call it a metaphor. A metaphor for what? I do not have a solid answer for yet. That could be my failing, but I suspect it's the film's. But simply because I don't understand the metaphor doesn't mean it isn't a metaphor. And if it is a metaphor we can assume it doesn't really happen. Even in the world of the movie. I'm going to loft that Wilton – who embarks on his adventure in the first place in order to prove his value after losing his wife to another man – is moving on "into the next room" in his life. Yeah, it's a crappy metaphor, but I prefer it to "Wilton discovers he has psychic abilities" which seems to be at the core of the complaints of many skeptics. Shermer doesn't specifically say this, but his review is typical of the "whaa whaa, Hollywood is stomping on the truth" attitude that pervades most of the reviews I have been witness to. For Christ sakes guys, it's a movie. If it isn't a documentary – which this isn't – you can't fairly read it literally.
In the evening I decided, what the hell and headed out to the theatre again for a somewhat bifurcated skeptical double feature. 2012, to not put too fine a point on it, is a piece of shit.
I'm going to refrain from touching any of the science. Others have gone there already, and even so, this film is a skeptical washout. The film is SO scientifically illiterate that to even approach it with the pretense that you expected more if it is to reveal that you came into the theatre looking for it to fail. It fails so egregiously on the science front that it makes Roland Emmerich's last disaster-porn flick The Day After Tomorrow look like an episode of Cosmos. At least The Day After Tomorrow had internal logic and while stupid; was stupid fun. I recall fondly sitting in the exact same theatre and crying out "Run or the ice-age will catch you!" 2012 quit offering anything engaging enough after the first half hour to be inspired to such mockery.
Have you seen the preview? You know, this one:
There. Have you seen it now? You just saved $12. That was the best part of the film – the mad-dash out of Los Angeles. If you must, go and watch a few other previews – watch the ocean pour over the Himalayas and wipe out a venerable Monk and his mountain temple; see the USS. John F Kennedy wipe out the Capitol; watch the Vatican disintegrate on top of a bunch of faith-foolish creationists. Whatever you do, do not bemoan that you'll be missing the actual plot. The world ends. That is the plot. No more context is really necessary. Okay, to be fair, there is a 21st century Noah effort, but by the time the film meanders there, it has already been thirty minutes too long and there's still far too much left.
Perhaps if the film treated the audience with a bit more respect for its intelligence, it might have earned more of its 2 and a half-hour running time. But instead we are expected to buy-in as time after time characters make illogical choices (Obstruction ahead, valley on the left, mountain on the right – which direction do you fly your plane? Answer: NOT towards the mountain. Yes, in a video game there would probably be a power-up hidden between the obstruction and the hillside – but this is (ahem) real life.); we are asked to enjoy the same basic 'action' set-up three separate times – if you watched the trailer, you've seen it – taking off in a plane while the ground disintegrates around you; and in the best of those three iterations – sadly also the first – we are presented with the ludicrous situation (watch the trailer again – it's right there) that once the plane takes off, somehow it is below the ground/city and has to dive the ensuing debris. Seriously. How the fuck does that happen? To give credit where credit is due, in the third iteration they do come up with a plausible reason for having to put the plane in a steep climb to narrowly avoid hitting the city it is below – but the same explanation is demonstrably absent in the first version. ARGH!!!
Let me rant on randomly for a bit...
You are flying across the Pacific with the intention of re-fuelling in Hawaii. It has already be clearly established that damned near everything anywhere near a coastline has sink beneath the waves, and you were just in Yellowstone Park when it turned into a super volcano... do you think maybe just maaaaaybe the infamously vulcanistic islands might not be a good plan?
So they AREN'T a good plan it turns out and now you haven't got enough fuel to make it to the mainland. The cargo plane you are in is filled with a metric fuck-tonne of cars. Does the concept of unloading weight occur to anyone? Of course not. Even if you accept that a car is necessary for the ensuing crash-landing escape, that only required one fucking car! Narratively it strikes me that any half-decent film-maker could find a reason to not unload one last car – say... the car aficionado in the group (and there was one) tearfully begs to preserve one single high-performance masterpiece – still a weak reason, but at least it has a dash of sense to it.
When the plane is finally going down (the aforementioned crash landing) rather than crash into the ocean, the dues ex machine raises its head (just an example of lazy lazy lazy plotting) and the Earth's crust has shifted by over 1000 miles – conveniently allowing them to crash land an easy drive from their final destination... what are the chances?
Okay, I'm going to stop there. The film is almost entirely crap. Emmerich seems to think that he's accomplishing something artistically valuable by upping the ante on older efforts. Rather than destroying the White House like in Independence Day, he destroys a plethora of landmarks in Washington, Las Vegas and the Vatican as well as other places with less visibility. Not content to drown New York like in The Day After Tomorrow he dumps California into the Pacific.
Allow me to stretch to find a point of light in this disastrous (by any definition) miasma... I'll watch Chiwetel Ejiofor in just about anything (though I won't watch him in this again) and I have to applaud Thandie Newton for having the cajones to step inside a movie-land Oval Office again after her totally fucking awful portrayal of Condoleeza Rice in W.
I admit I'm a teeny bit reticent to add skeptical celebrities to the Asshole Skeptic Honour Roll. I'd generally prefer to give unknown skeptics the thumbs up.
But Orac kinda put this one out of the park as far as I'm concerned.
Bill Maher is taking LOT of flak these days for his anti-vax position. I fully embrace the pro-vax agenda... if you haven't grokked that yet. But Maher is someone who I really want to respect. It actually annoys the living shit out of me that he is failing me (all of us - I'm simply taking this personally) on the alt-med front. I believe there is a good person in there... and I really want to believe that he might start seeing the light of reality... but so far the reality of that is painfully non-present. Maher has done a lot of good. I respect that he lost Politically Incorrect over speaking up about 9/11 politically (not to be confused with skeptically) before the dust of 9/11 had settled. I think that Religulouswas a good effort if a bit flaccid in it's impact. He has a lot to offer... but damn if he ain't fucking it all up with his anti-vax/pro-alt-med stance.
Anyhow... Orac has nailed Maher on this front. Hard. And he has regularly demonstrated a particularly non-scientist-like propensity for speaking with the vehemence that such topics usually are absent of.
Hear me scientists?!? (And doctors - which is more accurately what Orac is.)
It seems to fall to me and other laymen to speak forcefully, and that lacks a certain level of authority - so where the hell are the rest of you?
To be fair - there are others than Orac who speak out forcefully, but they are rare. There are far more scientists than there are people who know what they are talking about who are willing to speak out.
So come on, scientists - be like Orac and stand up. Quit leaving it to people like me - I'm a fucking film maker with a big mouth. Should I really be anything beyond an authority on how to disseminate our position? Gah!
Last week a couple of fellow Skeptic North bloggers, sent me this and shouted "You're it!"
I'm going to cut to the chase here. The writer of this particular pamphlet by all appearances is grade 'A' crack. You could stuff a chunk of her in a pipe and get whacked out of your fucking mind.
It may be a bit unfair to go after her too hard as I think it's not terribly unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that she is genuinely deranged. I say this in all honesty. I am not trying to unfairly disparage her. However, her 'fact sheet' redefines the word 'fact' and in the course serves to propagate information that contributes to the egregious public endangerment that the on-going anti-vaccination campaign is delighting in during these days of extreme sensitivity in the height of the first wave of the H1N1 pandemic and concurrent vaccination drive.
If you print out that PDF, close your eyes and drop your finger down on the page, you are more than likely to hit something that is demonstrably not a fact. I am not exaggerating. It is a morass of tired anti-vaxx argument, standard conspiracy theory paranoid clap and incredibly bad science. There is SO much wrong with it that I'm just not going to bother trying.
Instead, lets look a bit closer at the author.
Her website - Personocratia - practically speaks for itself. "Ghis" sees herself as a courageous spirit, fighting the oppressive powers that keep the world under their thumb. She follows her own narcissistic philosophy she calls Personocracy.
It is the reign of Personocratia, of conscious sovereign individuals who know they are the supreme authority and who only obey their conscience. They create a society in their image and likeness – Personocracy.
I'm no psychologist, but it doesn't take much to see through to the obnoxious levels of hip-deep bran-flake bull-shit narcisissm at the core of it. "Ghis" has determined herself to be a sovereign being, and apparently that absolves her from paying income tax. Her self-righteous machinations to avoid paying are childish.
She has informed the Governor General via her lawyer that her birth name Ghislaine Lanctot "will no longer be used as evidence of [her] identity." (Translated from French.) and she goes on to pull an "Artist formerly known as 'Prince'" and signs her letter with the symbol for infinity.
If there were a symbol for "rolling my eyes 'til I get vertigo and vomit" I would insert it here.
She takes issue with the fact that on her summons the phrase "every one" is used in reference to her obligation to appear in court. She cites the Canadian Criminal Code Definitions:
"every one", "person" and "owner", and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization;
"organization" means:
(a) a public body, body corporate, society, company, firm, partnership, trade union or municipality, or
(b) an association of persons that
(i) is created for a common purpose,
(ii) has an operational structure, and
(iii) holds itself out to the public as an association of persons
The laughable implication seems to be that as a sovereign being, she is not included in this definition. I might add that no where in our constitution does it say that sovereign beings have any rights what so ever. Does she really want to go down this road?
The argument by her lawyer also includes the defence that while ignorance of the law does not absolve one of the law...
...this celebrated principle of common law is not applicable to the Income Tax Law, since nobody can fully understand it, including judges, lawyers, civil servants, bookkeepers, ministers…. Some people may have a partial knowledge on specific articles, but nobody in Canada has full knowledge of this law...
Yeah. Tell that to Wesley Snipes.
The judge wasn't buying any of it. Ghislaine Lanctot has spent time in prison on this offence. She was also fined for it - $1000 for each of seven counts.
This isn't the first time she has been in trouble with the law. Once upon a time Ghislaine Lanctot was a doctor. "I sought unlimited health." Danger Will Robinson! She sketches out her journey from Phlebologist to "Idessic Being in Training" as she came to "understand the real inner workings of the health industry." She eventually wrote a book called “The Medical Mafia.”
That brought the full power of the medical establishment down upon me. It retaliated by bringing me to trial. To no one’s surprise, I was convicted and my licence was revoked for life!
Poor poor set-upon crazy lady. Thank FSM she won't be MY doctor.
If you happen to like a good crack substitute you can check out more on her site. Or, if you are really up for some fun you can write her and see what crazy shit she sends back.
I did.
I tossed her the equivalent of a slow, fat pitch right across the plate asking faux-credulous questions about some of the items on her Vaccinations 101 Fuct Sheet (typo-intentional).
1) You say that vaccinations are like giving a child a small rape to prepare them for a bigger rape. This sounds terrifying to me and I must admit I simply do not understand. Perhaps you can elaborate? How is a rape like a vaccination? I'm also really uncertain about the idea of a small rape and a bigger rape. I thought rape was kind of an absolute thing. You are either raped or you are not raped - there are no partial measures. But I digress - please clarify this for me, I find it very disturbing and scary.
2) "The efficiency of vaccines has never been proven scientifically." I'm not really certain what you mean here. Do you mean that if I were to have a needle stuck in my arm I wouldn't know whether it was going to hurt, help or do nothing to me? Or are you saying that we don't have any proof that vaccines have ever accomplished anything? I heard that small pox was eliminated with vaccines? Isn't that good? Isn't it proof?
3) "We do not die of a disease... the fear of microbes and illness knocks people out and vaccines finish them off." Now this sounds to me like you are saying that vaccines are being used deliberately as a poison or something to actively kill people. Is that really what is going on, or am I misunderstanding you? If it is what is going on, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of it. Why would the medical establishment want to kill so many people? And why wait for them to get sick from fear? What if they don't get scared? This is confusing for me, perhaps I haven't spent enough time learning about health as it relates to my spirit.
4) You start a list of "three" ingredients that are in vaccines, but I only see two in your list - though each of those two has many things, but I see your point - you are categorizing the ingredients, right? In any case I am still curious what the third ingredient is in the witches' brew. Is it possible... can you send me a link or links to your resources for what is in vaccines? I want to understand this as much as I can on my own.
She did write back. Seemingly excited by my interest, but failing to answer a single thing. Not a word. She did send me some links though.
Warning:The crazy only gets deeper out here in the middle.
First she sent me a quadruple-shot of Wayne Madsen interviews. The man has never met a conspiracy he didn’t want to hate-fuck.
I did send her back an email asking why she would put faith in someone who is such a nut case that he is a card carrying “Birther.” I suspect that that was when she decided to quit sending me stuff. I have heard nothing since.
I’m going out on a limb here. I’m going to assume Baxter DID. (Note: Not quite see update below.) Because its not as if H1N1 is a new viral type. It is a new strain of the type. The main components are the same, and thus the essentials could be set in place and patented long in advance of any outbreak. Now, granted, I’m not a doctor. I am kind of talking out my ass here, and as I am writing this too late at night to call up a doctor friend (and too tired to do effective research on my own) I’m going to have to confirm this one in the morning. (Again see update below.) But I’ll get some clarification on that and update this probably within the day. In any case, assuming my layman’s (I’m a fucking layman for Christ-sake and I came up with a plausible and rational explanation – GaaaahHHH!) account of how this might have happened is correct, it calls into question what kind of crappy doctor was she in the first place? I think the answer is clear: not a very good one – or perhaps one with an unfortunate mental health issue as I previously alluded.
UPDATE: (10 hours later.) Thanks to Dr. Rob Tarzwell for his assists on this. My information was wrong, but ultimately the same essential argument remains valid - but I'll get to that.
For starters, here is the patent application. (The same document they link to in the Ahrcanum post.) It is NOT a patent on the vaccine. It is a patent on a process for making vaccines. And H1N1 is merely one of the possible flu types that it can be used to create vaccines for. The particularly galling thing about this is that it takes only the most rudimentary level of understanding to glean this from the patent application. To be clear - I can figure that out. Perverting this into "Baxter had a patent on an H1N1 vaccine before the epidemic is either complete ingnoramity; and utter failure to bother reading the document; or the willful assumption that the people who are being told the bad information aren't going to bother reading the document themselves. That in itself is pretty obscene.
On top of that, my original point about H1N1 merely being one type of flu - a variant that has been around much longer than we've been making vaccines of any sort - and thus getting a head start on the process of preparing a vaccine for it is hardly any indication of a conspiracy. We know this form of virus is out there, we can therefore be as prepared as possible to fight a new strain of it well in advance. Two years - if that were even a relevant argument anymore - is nothing. ...Fuckers.
[Update ends.]
The last link she sent was from Gloria.tv a website whose sub-title just cracks me up; “the more Catholic the better.”
Its subtitled, an hour long and, considering the rest of the information “Dr” Lanctot sent me, I expect its complete bullshit, though I was really only getting to the real garbage when I gave up watching. If anyone beats my mark of 20 minutes and 18 seconds, let me know!
NOTE: At the specific request of the party used as my primary example, there have been edits made to this post. The person in question is not named Binky McSmudgypigeon, nor are they a balloon-animal therapist, nor are they underfire from the College of Clown Surgeons. The form of the circumstances remain the same, and perhaps at some point the details will be brought to light. Ultimately this only goes to serve my point - the attacks upon Mr. McSmudgypigeon have necessitated this change. You can make your own conclusions about the actions of the College of Clown Surgeons on this matter - I think it will be clear where I stand from the context of the post.
------------------------------------------
You know what really burns my ass?
Its when some petty S.O.B. decides for whatever reason that they are justified in leveraging legal weight against reality.
This happens all the time. Take the Dover trial for example. Or the plight of Simon Singh. Or the many travailles of Steven Barrett. Science says one thing, and that thing - that fact - when publicized in whatever manner, upsets someone who turns to the legal system in hopes of hampering the propogation of fact in their own favour. Its damned near pathological.
In many cases the litigants are simply of the mistaken belief that they are correct. In some cases you have to know that the person or people launching the proceedings know damned well that they are full of shit, such as in the case of Yuri Geller. But in virtually ALL of the above cases the litigants knew/know damned well that the scientific evidence is decidedly not on their side.
Fortunately both scientific evidence and legal evidence have the same concepts at their core. Unfortunately both are corruptible by emotion and ambition. Legal evidence more so than science, but all else being equal a legal proceeding will default to falling in line with scientific fact. And what a relief that is.
But that in itself is not enough. That only counts when a trial becomes a reality, and often an actual trial is not the intention of the complainant. Often all they seek to do is to shut down the defendant. Relying on the liklihood that the defendant cannot afford to pay for their defence and at the very least hoping that an injunction will in the interim prevent the on-going publication of the truths that the litigant finds inconvenient. But fighting science with the law in this manner is cowardly and deserves to backfire in the worst of ways.
Case in point: Local BAT (Balloon Animal Therapist) Binky Mc Smudgypigeon has spent much of the past two years dealing with nuisances from the College of Clown Surgeons. In short, Binky, not unlike Simon Singh, pointed out in his professional blog that significant portions of what Seltzer-o-paths do is (my words, not his) bullshit. And that is pretty much where the science lays. But, as you can imagine, the pseudo-scientists seltzer-o-paths weren't too happy about this. Bad enough that someone was speaking out and calling their practices into question - doubly damning when the person in question appears on the surface to be from your own CAM bretheren. But Binky is an oddity being a skeptical/science-based balloon animal therapist - which essentially amounts to not claiming that his therapy can do anything that isn't firmly supported empirically.
The College of Clown Surgeons has spent a lot of effort trying to shut Binky up. But he is a man of integrity and has discretely refused, meanwhile behind the scenes various people including doctors, ethicists, commentators and other folks I am not at liberty to reveal have stood up behind him and assured him that in this particular bar-brawl we've got his back. Did I say 'we'? Yeah - you can be damned sure I'm not playing Gandhi in this particular fracas.
So - does this mean war? Well, no... not precisely.
But while the College of Clown Surgeons has seemingly decided to make an example of Binky, with what is ultimately a frivolous inquiry and implied threat, it is transparently the basest of manipulations. Quite frankly it's fucking shameful. They should be embarassed for themselves, not only for what is essentially a cheap, punk-ass maneuver, but for also not anticipating that there is an international legion of science advocates waiting in the wings ready to shine the bright light of scientific evidence upon them and make their petty machinations look foolish by any measure. Furthermore, they will look like knobs over this matter without the critical thinking community having to resort to hiding like crying children behind the skirt of the legal-system.
Barristers?!? We don't need no stinking barristers!!!
I'd like to thank The Sun for its refreshingly rational, science-based coverage of efforts to bring H1N1-prevention measures to the public. There is much confusion afoot about how best to protect ourselves and you appear to have made an effort to follow facts supporting what is most likely to be efficacious and what the realistic drawbacks are.
A popular weekly paper in Vancouver has taken to promoting practices that are demonstrably dangerous to public health, including homeopathy and vaccination denial. It's good to see that someone in the business of spreading the news is doing so responsibly.
No big secret if you've been reading along here, the "popular weekly paper" I am refering to is the Georgia Straight. I spent a fair bit of time devoted to slagging it's poor policies over a month ago. And guess what? This particular letter... was sent to the Sun back then.
In my mind, putting off publishing this letter until now kind of mis-represents the opinion I was expressing. First off, despite my reference to the Straight's homeopathy articles, it is referring to a circumstance whose immediacy is stale, and no longer in quickly available public evidence. (Though for the record, here's the original article.) It is also worth noting that the Straight later published an article with considerably better science.
But of more concern is the second issue; that in the interim, the Sun could themselves have published any number of complete bullshit articles. A cursory glance at relevant headlines... looks as though their record is probably reasonably good. So I'm probably not inadvertently giving my implicit approval of a heap of bad information. But the point is, I could have been.
I thought there was a policy of checking sources - calling me up at the phone number they requied me to include - just to make sure I am who I claim, and that I do stand behind the opinion voiced in my letter? If they had, they would have received my consent - or, at worst, a request to update my opinion to reflect the changes of circumstance; specifically the on-set of flu-season; over a dozen H1N1 deaths in B.C.; and, FSM-forbid, the on-going representation of fact by the Sun. But instead they sullied it with a fractional mis-representation, reducing the chances of me giving them a vote of support in the future.
This is really a matter of principle more than any real grievance. I'm annoyed with it at the moment, and wanted to point out the minor misrepresentation somewhere for the record. I'll cool off in the next day or two.
-----
On a side note: Through October I made a point of devoting most of my skeptical writing to the first month of Skeptic North. But now that's behind us. I'll be shifting my attention back in favour of this blog - without ignoring Skeptic North - for the next while. Eventually I'll zero in on the appropriate balance between the two.
I already have singled out the next well deserved target of my ire. That'll probably fall directly under my fire by the weekend. I'm looking forward to not tempering my tongue again.
Posts
