Hypocrisy

Posted on January 27, 2015 | 5 Comments

tin foilCredit: The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe

This cartoon reminded me of some of the local campaigners against fluoridation. They almost all are either strongly connected to the “natural” health movement and its businesses, or, because of their beliefs, are customers of that industry. Yet they often argue that genuine scientific and health experts are in the pay of “big pharma” or similar businesses and are acting as “shills” for industry! That is plain hypocrisy. Similar articles

This entry was posted in Health and Medicine, New Zealand, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 responses to “Hypocrisy”

  1. greenbuzzer | January 27, 2015 at 11:38 am |

    Keep trying Ken . . . “Natural Health’ is not so much an industry as a birthright . . . being stolen by the pseudoscientists who are in the pockets of Big Pharma and other commercial enterprises who will fund anyone who supports and covers up their rape and pillage of the earth . . . even to the point of trying to patent plants and seeds etc . . . the hypocrites are those who refuse to front up and debate in public the pros and cons of fluoridation for instance ( you can see a long list of these on the FANZ site) and yet would impose that on an unsuspecting public, hiding behind their grandiose titles and institutions, and the protection of politicians such as John Key who makes sure his ‘Science Advisor’ is comfortable, I’m sure.

    Like

  2. soundhill1 | January 27, 2015 at 11:48 am |

    The word is “shills”. A technique used is to go on a discussion group and ask a question and answer it in another name to support a product.

    Or to make a dubious comment that some people might mistake for genuine health info claim then shoot it down to give a bad look to alternative health.

    Or to pretend what alternative health care is about, and shoot the straw man.

    And correlation is not causation in the connections you relate of.

    Conventional medicine is not perfect. If it is a corporate entity then responsibility to shareholders is uppermost.

    Discussion groups tend to work with very vocal discrediting and then shutting down discussion as “off topic” when that is explored.

    Supposed skeptic or science groups may not work for serious discussion/enquiry. Their hypocrisy is they become just “feel good” groups for supposed science and cannot suffer analysis, or even explain it as wrong as someone may or may not try about this post of mine.

    Like

  3. Ken | January 27, 2015 at 11:58 am |

    Special pleading going into high gear here – one even managed their pleading in one extremely long sentence (and I suspect breath).

    >

    Like

  4. David Fierstien | January 28, 2015 at 6:08 am |

    I like this quote from Greenbuzzer (And by the way, is that a reference to marijuana? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.): “Natural Health’ is not so much an industry as a birthright . . ” But I like the quote and, just for shits & giggles, let’s take a close look at it.

    At first glance of the statement, one assumes that “birthright” is ranked higher in Greenbuzzer’s mind than “industry.” I say this by the context of his statement, which is a defense of “Natural Health.” Natural Health is a birthright, not an industry; therefore, since Natural Health is good, and since Natural Health is a “birthright,” birthright must be good. Natural Health is more a birthright than an industry; therefore, birthright is better than industry. And yet, these two ideas, “birthright” and “industry” can’t, in the strictest analytic sense, be ranked against one another. Birthright has nothing to do with industry. These are two completely different concepts that can’t be compared in any ranking order. It would be like me saying trees are better than snow. What would that even mean?

    Just to give Greenbuzzer the benefit of the doubt, I think this is what he means: Natural Health is a birthright (end of thought). Natural Health is not an industry (end of thought). Well, if that’s what he means, that’s completely different.

    First thought: Natural Health is a birthright. Now, while I might agree with that, I think we need to define what Greenbuzzer means by Natural Health. Personally, I would say that medicine which is a product of science and reasoning is Natural Health. The human brain is natural; therefore, that which is consequent of the brain is also natural. Coherent reasoning and rational analysis are not only inaugurated by the human brain, but are also the foundations of science, scientific analysis, and medical science. Therefore, medical science is Natural Health. Vaccines and fluoridated water are examples of Natural Health. Since these are products of reasoning, which is in turn a product of the human brain, and since human beings were born with a brain, then all that emanates from the brain is our birthright, and yes, Greenbuzzer is correct, Natural Health is a birthright.

    Unfortunately, that’s not what he means. I think we all know that he is talking about the stuff that Dr. Joseph Mercola sells, which is “alternative medicine.” Since alternative medicine is the antithesis of medical science, which has been established as natural health, and a birthright, alternative medicine is neither natural health nor a birthright.

    Second thought: Natural Health is not an industry. Wow, that’s an easy one.

    Definition of Industry (It’s safe to say that Greenbuzzer is referring to these definitions.):
    b : a department or branch of a craft, art, business, or manufacture; especially : one that employs a large personnel and capital especially in manufacturing
    c : a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises

    Ok, now with those definitions in mind, Google Dr. Joseph Mercola, alternative medicine proponent, osteopathic physician, and web entrepreneur, who markets a variety of controversial dietary supplements and medical devices through his website, mercola.com, and whose website and company, Mercola LLC reportedly brought in about $7 million in 2010 through the sale of a variety of alternative medicine treatments and dietary supplements.

    Case closed.

    Like

  5. Ken | January 28, 2015 at 7:05 am |

    And let’s not forget that Mercola and his business is a major funder of Connett’s crowd, the Fluoridation Action Network, which is responsible for most of the misinformation and scientific distortion related to fluoride. The two are also organisationally connected. Incidentally, Paul Connett and his wife get a monthly allowance of at least US$1000 each (as at 2011 – it may be larger now) from this funding. His son Michael probably also gets a similar if not greater allowance.

    There is big money in pseudoscience and anti-science so it is natural for Mercola to invest in, and promote, ideological anti-fluoride hysteria as it reaps a healthy return to his business.

    >

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.