THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINES

New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 
Coupon SHOPWITHHWC

 

Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

The Independence Argument.

 

We never learned to think for ourselves. We always thought we already knew everything. And so we blindly followed the reductionist/materialist "explanation" and thought that our fragment of the overall test was the decisive factor without understanding the whole.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We engage in character assassination and swearwords for lack of decent arguments.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We always move the goal posts.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We simply dismiss data through bookkeeper's mentality and say the numbers don't add up, when calculated to make you lose. We simply fudge the numbers,

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We overlook half the evidence.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We deny what does not suit our purpose.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

 

The Funding Issues

 

SAS who are our paymasters have removed the Big Pharma funding info from the website. Now we can plausibly deny.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We defend Big Pharma whose evidence consists of the ability to poison the people and call that evidence-based medicine.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We defend Big Pharma whose further evidence consists of 8% relaiability in RCTs.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We defend Big Pharma whose admission of 11% as capable of doing something for the disease, apart from producing disease.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We defend Big Pharma whose evidence thus amounts to less than anecdotal and call it "evidence-based medicine" because we can at least be sure of the side effects.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We engage in 13th Century monkish work, by classifying quantifying and enumerating results of disease or drugs and call both causes.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

 

The RCT Argument.

 

We defend the RCT as the gold standard although it has been severely criticised and is also not the appropriate vehicle to test homoeopathy, but we call it scientific because of these reasons.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

We defend the RCT, because although it has 3 major flaws and thus is useless as a method, we still call it the gold-standard, because we don't have any better.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

We defend the RCT, although the first flaw is in testing an unknown medicine on a sick person. The disease is going to influence the results in several unknown ways, the first of which is that disease is expressed differenty from person to person. There is no uniform testing field and it is not properly randomised for that reason.  

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

We defend the RCT, although the second flaw is in assessing the effects of an unknown medicine. We cannot know how the disease modifies the action and reaction of the medicine and are unable to know this by inference of the numbers on the machines. Those fragments of the whole are insufficient to assess effects on the sick.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

We defend the RCT, although the third flaw is in assessing of the side effects of an unknown medicine. Since it cannot be know how and in what way the disease influences the outcome of the results, these results remain inconclusive and thus neither scientific nor proving if something is here or there.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

Knowing these flaws in the RCT, we nonetheless adhere to this less than dog-shit standard of "scientific" assessment, because without it, we will be completely out in the wilderness. The fact that we are more in the wilderness with it, completely escapes our attention through cognitive dissonance.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

Knowing full well that this adherence goes both ways, we realise that this therefore counts for homoeopathic medicines too and that therefore any RCT of a homoeopathic (or for that matter pharmaceutical) medicinal substance is also useless to prove whether homoeopathy or pharmaceutical "works".

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

 

The Criminality Argument.

 

We defend Big pharma because they have been selling drugs that were neither approved for the purpose sold for but whose side effects include severe disabilities.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We defend a criminal enterprise who have been convicted multiple ties of manslaughter and who create disease as a for profit criminal scam.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We know that our funders are convicted criminals not once, but many times over, yet we accuse the quacks of exploiting the people for billions by giving them water and sugar. We diminish the faults of Pharmaceutical quackery and praise their quasi-scientific standards as the pinnacle of understanding although they tell us nothing about real causes.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

The Overdose Argument.

 

We say there is nothing in it and when it suits us we call it poison. Therefore we always take the remedies in overdose that could at most be putting you to sleep. But when challeneged to do the real test, we always chicken out and say we don't want to get sick and say you first.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We never let them finish in the debate and always interrupt and side-track the conversation so that they do not get the chance to finish their explanation. We know we would stand there with the mouth full of teeth.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

 

The Efficacy Argument.

 

We have at most 5 studies that disprove homoeopathy and two meta-ananlyses, from which we lift sentences out of context to prove our point and we always drag Shang out of his grave. The opposition has over 200 studies and 30 meta-ananlyses, but we dismiss them as not from peer reviewed journals although we know they are.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

Of course all the stuff from Big Pharma that is full of holes and falsified to get through the FDA and thus not reliable, according to both JAMA and BMJ We know this too. But we never reply to that because it cannot be refuted. We simply go on about the water and the sugar pills.
Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

The Materials Science Argument.

We have never been schooled in any homoeopathy but opinionate on everything they say as if we do.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We have absolutely no qualifications in materials science but we can there fore easily dismiss it because we do not understand the subject. Black holes have not been proven to exist by any means, but are true because of "scientific consensus" and our "scientific consensus" says homoeopathy is bunk, because it cannot be measured. We do not accept 100 million cured people as evidence, whereas logically it should be the only criterion.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.


We know nothing about how exactly homoeopathic medicines are made and in true silly fashion try to make them ridiculous in the view of the fragmenting way of thinking we employ by discussing the dilution, without having a clue how Arsenicum was made. We simply say there is nothing in it.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

Btw, Arsenicum is a poisonous substance and homoeopaths sell it. That should be forbidden. The same counts for that Malaria officinalis, that is made from rotten swamp material. There could still be bugs in there. That must certainly be forbidden.The mixed metaphor we employ here is what we always do.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

We dismiss Nobel Prize scientists as knowing nothing about homoeopathy, and tell that they are toddering demented people, when they provide proof.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.



The Anecdotal Evidence Argument.

 

We rely on anecdotal evidence as the tool to dismiss your claims and forget that pharmaceutical quackery has an average of 9%, which is less than anecdotal evidence.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

The plural of anecdote is data, since otherwise pharmaceutical anecdotal evidence is equally inadmissibe and then we are defeated. So we deny that their anecdotes have been gotten through trials, whereas it is the biggest trial ever conducted with universal beneficial results. Therefore we must employ the placebo gambit because otherwise we are lost.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

The Placebo Argument.

 

The placebo gamble is lost. Animal studies prove it and so we invent the fancy story that animals can be fooled with placebo and make ourselves utterly ridiculous.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

The placebo gamble is lost again. University studies have proven that plants react to remedies and that diseaases can be cured for which Big Agribizz has no cures. Thus we deny simply that this comes from the remedies.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

The placebo gamble is lost again, Preclinical studies on bacteria and cancer cells prove it. We deny validity, because they have been published in a homoeopathic magazine. They are also on PubMed who are pretty rigorous and in the Cochrane review, which is our favourite because they often dismiss homoeopathy

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

 

Conclusive Argument.

 

We are not skeptical about anything Big Pharma does because we are paid to not do that. We ARE truly pseudo-skpetics. We are dishonest in all our dealings.

Therefore pseudo-skepticism works.

 

Paradox: Science postulates an observer independent reality even though science depends on the observer to measure & observe reality. But we say that our reality is observer independent, although this is not possible.

Therefore, pseudo-skepticism works.

 

However, Homoeopathy Heals!

 
Kaviraj.
In the service of SB 1/5/33.
Vice President, World Homoeopathic Association UK Chapter.
Author "Homoeopathy for Farm & Garden"
Available in 7 languages. 12 in progress.

Views: 192

Comment

You need to be a member of Homeopathy World Community to add comments!

Join Homeopathy World Community

Comment by jennifer Prescott Dooley on March 23, 2011 at 10:14am
thanks!
Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on March 23, 2011 at 10:13am
Jennifer, please go ahead. Share everywhere. Tweet, Fb, Linkedin, wherever.
Comment by jennifer Prescott Dooley on March 23, 2011 at 9:27am

They are now using the new argument that homeopathy kills.... and yet it is a placebo!  They cannot make up their minds.....

 

Kavi - this is an amazing analysis. I love it - do you mind if I share?

Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on March 23, 2011 at 6:32am
They cannot make up their minds.
Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on March 23, 2011 at 6:28am
One group of skeptics say that homeopathy causes side effects, others say ther is no effect - Their ideas are kaleidoscopic like the medicines in modern medicine!
Comment by DR. Sushil Bahl on March 22, 2011 at 3:55am
A perfect analysis.Let the criticisers of homoeopathy and the friends of Antipathies think with open mind.

HWC Partners

RADIO & VIDEO SHOWS

© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...