I saw this story earlier and was going to compose a response myself but A Glasgow Skeptic, has done a tremendous job already. I’ll just repost his refutation of the craziness here.
Earlier today I was browsing Google News for any new stories about the upcoming 10:23 mass “overdose”. I stumbled upon an article from “Natural News” and decided to investigate. The “article” was titled:
What a broad topic to cover. Expecting masses of wrong generalisations, I read on. Even I was shocked at the ignorance and lies expressed in the list of words (article is too nice a word). I decided to address his each and every point, in an attempt to enlighten him. I know it won’t work. I know that nothing I say will change his mind. But I hope that I can perhaps enlighten readers to the ignorance and deception over at naturalnews.com.
Skeptics believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective (even if they’ve never been tested), that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will, and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and “good for your health.”
This is a ridiculous idea. Of course they need to best tested. The recent debate concerned whether it was more important to test the swine flu vaccine more thoroughly or to have it in use more quickly. Also, the basic serum, the medium that the virus is delivered in, has already been tested; adding a different type of virus to it is not going to change that. The poorly worded NHS leaflet stating that a baby could manage 10,000 vaccines at once was simply trying to indicate how little stress a vaccine places on the immune system. Simply put, giving a baby 100 vaccines would use up only 1% of its immune system.
Skeptics believe that fluoride chemicals derived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health. They’re so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into the water supply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.
The source is irrelevant, and the argument seems to be a simple guilt-by-association.
(You homeopaths believe that arsenic – a poison – will cure… Arsenic poisoning. Ridiculous, eh?)
Skeptics believe that many six-month-old infants need antidepressant drugs. In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more — simultaneously!
Perhaps many six-month-old infants do need antidepressant drugs. I have neither the knowledge nor the expertise to judge either way. However, through the fog of ignorance, I will point out that simply because antidepressants are recommended does not mean that it is thought babies are suffering from depression. For example, the painkiller aspirin is used to prevent heart attacks.
Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines.
No skeptic believes this. Skeptics believe (due to evidence in the form of antibody counts) that vaccines BOOST the immune system. A defunct virus, unable to replicate, is injected. The body detects it and triggers an immune response. In this way, if the person comes into contact with anactive virus, the immune response will be faster, stronger, and for a prolonged period of time.
Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis. (They are opponents of natural childbirth.)
Again, a ridiculous idea. Presumably infertility is, therefore, a sign of good health? A disease is “a disorder of structure or function”. We need to reproduce; pregnancy is the method of achieving reproduction (for now). I’m not quite sure what you mean by “natural” childbirth. However, referring to the idea that childbirth is a “medical crisis”, it may interest you to know that “as recently as 90 years ago” as many as 1% of births resulted in maternal death. That figure is now 0.013%, thanks to modern medicine.
Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis. This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences.
Recent research has shown that those who are hypnotised are simply in a very very relaxed state; an extreme form of an already known state – NOT a separate state. Being skeptical often puts you outside of mainstream views, actually. “Chiropractic? Isn’t that real medicine?” “Homeopathy? It’s ground up plants! That works!”
Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness. They do not believe in the mind; only in the physical brain. In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever.
I don’t even know how to respond to that one…
I believe in the brain, and believe that the mind is derived from it. That my mind is derived from the laws of physics and chemistry. I believe I am conscious, and that I have free will. A soul though? Nope.
Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).
I guess it depends on how long they’ve been dead…
Skeptics believe that pesticides on the crops are safe, genetically modified foods are safe, and that any chemical food additive approved by the FDA is also safe. There is no advantage to buying organic food, they claim.
Just like with homeopathy, the levels of these pesticides are too low to affect health. We have been genetically modifying food for years. The wild cabbage has been genetically modified over the years to produce “brocolli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale, Brussel sprouts, spring greens, romanescu and, of course, the various kinds of vegetables that are still commonly called cabbage.” [Richard Dawkins – The Greatest Show on Earth (page 27)]
Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration. Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).
What other use would you suggest?
Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking…)
A simple lie. See Taxol. The ignorance of your… position is breathtaking.
Skeptics believe that the moon has no influence over life on Earth. Farming in sync with moon cycles is just superstition, they say. (So why are the cycles of life for insects, animals and humans tied to the moon, then?)
I was not aware that the “cycles of life” were tied to the moon. A reference, please? (Insects and humans are animals, incidentally). See here
Skeptics believe that the SUN has no role in human health other than to cause skin cancer. They completely deny any healing abilities of light.
Again, completely ridiculous bullshit. See here.
Skeptics believe that Mother Nature is incapable of synthesizing medicines. Only drug companies can synthesize medicines, they claim. (So why do they copy molecules from nature, then?)
Again, lies. It is well known that aspirin is derived from the bark of the willow tree, for example. Humans simply synthesize and purify it, to ensure that the correct dosage is given, and that there are no contaminants.
Skeptics do not believe in intuition. They believe that mothers cannot “feel” the emotions of their infants at a distance. They write off all such “psychic” events as mere coincidence.
Line of sight, sound, pheromones. All viable methods of emotional communication. Telepathy is not.
Skeptics believe that all healing happens from the outside, from doctors and technical interventions. They do not believe that patients have any ability to heal themselves. Thus, they do not ascribe any responsibility for health to patients. Rather, they believe that doctors and technicians are responsible for your health. Anyone who dismisses doctors and takes charge of their own health is therefore acting “irresponsibly,” they claim.
This is completely ridiculous, no surprise. Fighting of the common cold, headaches, stomach aches? Do you think that skeptics suppose that humans popped into existence with full medical knowledge? No. We acquired this knowledge over hundreds of years, and it is that knowledge that has driven down death rates in EMDCs.
Skeptics believe that cell phone radiation poses absolutely no danger to human health. A person can be exposed to unlimited cell phone radiation without any damage whatsoever.
Thank you for mentioning that one. New research here.
Skeptics believe that aspartame and artificial chemical sweeteners can be consumed in unlimited quantities with no ill effects.
False. Consuming ANYTHING in large enough quantities will kill you. 3 litres of water in one sitting can do it. “…aspartame does release a tiny amount of methanol. It’s less than the amount you get from eating a piece of most any fruit. Tomato juice, for example, gives you four times the methanol of a can of diet soda.”
Skeptics believe that human beings were born deficient in synthetic chemicals and that the role of pharmaceutical companies is to “restore” those deficiencies in humans by convincing them to swallow patented pills.
Are you not simply stating here that “skeptics believe that human beings sometimes need modern medicine”?
Skeptics believe that you can take unlimited pharmaceuticals, be injected with an unlimited number of vaccines, expose yourself to unlimited medical imaging radiation, consume an unlimited quantity of chemicals in processed foods and expose yourself to an unlimited quantity of environmental chemical toxins with absolutely no health effects whatsoever!
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Pointless, baseless, ungrounded lies!
All the beliefs listed above were compiled from “skeptics” websites. (I’m not going to list those websites here because they don’t deserve the search engine rankings, but you can find them yourself through Google, if you wish.)
How very noble of you. I don’t want my readers to be able to fact check, so instead I shall invent some wacky bullshit excuse. Fantastic!
Skeptics aren’t consistently skeptical
If you really look closely at the beliefs of “skeptics,” you discover their skepticism is selective. They’re really skeptical about some things — like vitamins — but complete pushovers on others such as the scientific credibility of drug company studies.
Here are some of the many things that “skeptics” should be skeptical about, but aren’t:
Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the corruption and dishonesty in the pharmaceutical industry. They believe whatever the drug companies say, without asking a single intelligent question.
No, we acknowledge that the pharmaceutical industry is open to “corruption” (whatever that means), that it is driven by profit, and that it can often be quite unethical. But even so, their treatments work!
Skeptics aren’t skeptical about medical journals. They believe whatever they read in those journals, even when much of it turns out to be complete science fraud.
Peer-review tries to filter out bullshit, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, succeeds. A paper to be published is sent out to several experts in the field who will check the paper, noting criticisms etc. See here
Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the profit motive of the pharmaceutical industry. They believe that drug companies are motivated by goodwill, not by profits.
You must have spoken to some confused skeptics.
Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the motivations and loyalties of the FDA. They will swallow, inject or use any product that’s FDA approved, without a single reasonable thought about the actual safety of those products.
This may be the first (and only) reasonable claim. Most people will not consider the idea that the medicine they are taking might do them harm if they follow directions. But if we do not trust the FDA to confirm the safety and efficacy of products (homeopathic remedies have to go through these same tests, right? No? Oh…) then who are we to trust?
Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the safety of synthetic chemicals used in the food supply. They just swallow whatever poisons the food companies dump into the foods.
Is there any reason that we should be more wary of “synthetic” chemicals? Personally, I’d rather be slugging down some aspartame-filled Diet Coke than munching on a capsule containing naturally occurring hydrogen cyanide. Mmmm, tasty. Again, these food companies are FDA-regulated.
On a side note, why would the food companies aim to poison their customers? The motive is never really explained adequately.
Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the enormous dangers of ionizing radiation from mammograms and CT scans. They have somehow convinced themselves that “early detection saves live” when, in reality, “early radiation causes cancer.”
There is great debate amongst scientists and skeptics about the safety and effectiveness of mammograms. Don’t make too wide a generalisation.
Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the mass-drugging agenda of the psychiatric industry which wants to diagnose everyone with some sort of “mental” disorder. The skeptics just go right along with it without asking a single commonsense question about whether the human brain really needs to be “treated” with a barrage of mind-altering chemicals.
And yet many people come out psychiatrists with only therapy. Why would a psychiatrist miss those many chances to prescribe a drug and pocket the profit themselves? Their big-pharma overlords won’t be happy about that…
Skeptics aren’t skeptical about mercury fillings. What harm could mercury possibly do anyway? If the ADA says they’re safe, they must be!
Low exposure levels, amalgam is stable etc.
Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the demolition-style collapse of the World Trade Center 7 building on September 11, 2001 — a building that was never hit by airplanes. This beautifully-orchestrated collapse of a hardened structure could only have been accomplished with precision explosives. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc…) Astonishingly, “skeptics” have little understanding of the laws of physics. Concrete-and-steel buildings don’t magically collapse in a perfect vertical demolition just because of a fire on one floor…
Skeptics are open-minded. I would be open to the idea that the government pulled it off. It’s a nasty thought but I would be open to it – but it can be better explained without government involvement. However, you closed-mindly state that the collapse could “only have been accomplished with precision explosives.” Astonishingly, it seems that YOU have no awareness of the notion that fire spreads. The fire could have started in a wastebin, but if it spreads, it can move from taking up a bin, to an entire floor to, well, many floors. And has been pointed out many times, whilst the temperatures reached would not have been enough to melt steel, at 1000 degrees celsius, steel has only 10% of its strength at room temperature.
Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the safety of non-stick cookware, or the dangers of cleaning chemicals in the home, or the contamination of indoor air with chemical fumes from carpets, paints and particle board furniture. To the skeptics, the more chemicals, the better!
No, but often it is many years before any effects are noticeable. Once they are noticed, the offending chemicals are likely to be phased out.
I chose to stop my response there, as the rest is purely drivel. Fictitious, imagined, ad-hominems come as strong as they get. Feel free to take a look for yourself, but there is nothing intellectual to be garnered from such a torturous experience.
Feel free to comment if you have any criticism (of either party) or if you see anything you think I might have missed. Thanks for reading.