Allaxys Communications --- Transponder V --- Allaxys Forum 1
The March of the Morons / Guruismus / von Massenwahn bis Führerkultismus => Die Skeptiker - Esoterik der besonderen Art... => Topic started by: ama on August 20, 2023, 07:17:26 PM
-
Wer hätte das gedacht? Edzard Ernst ist sauer. Auf die Skeptiker. In seinem Blog schrieb er vorgestern bemerkenswerte Worte:
https://edzardernst.com/2023/08/where-skeptics-often-go-wrong-when-commenting-on-scam-and-what-should-be-done-about-it/
[*QUOTE*]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where skeptics often go wrong when commenting on SCAM, and what should be done about it
Published Friday 18 August 2023
I like skeptics; they have taught me a lot, and I am thankful for it.
At the same time, they occasionally irritate me when they comment on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Why? Because, when they comment on SCAM, they are not rarely wrong or at least not quite correct.
I am referring to the typical scenario where a skeptic discusses a form of SCAM and explains that there is no evidence on it. Such statements are almost invariably false. There is evidence on almost all forms of SCAM; it may not be positive but it exists. To make statements to the contrary is demonstrably wrong.
Let’s assume that a skeptic discusses CUPPING (I am referring to an actual video that I recently watched). He explains its history, how it’s done, that there is no plausible mode of action, and that there is NO evidence on it.
[BILD: Pregnant Man Cartoons and Comics - funny pictures from CartoonStock]
This is not correct!
In fact, there is a substantial body of evidence in terms of clinical trials and even systematic reviews (if you search this blog, you will find quite a bit; if you go on Medline, you’ll find even more). And there is some evidence about cupping’s possible mode of action.
Don’t get me wrong:
I am not a fan of cupping,
in fact, cupping is merely an example – I could have chosen almost any other SCAM,
I am certainly not defending therapists who practice cupping,
the evidence is far from convincing.
All that I am trying to say is this:
When you comment on a SCAM (or anything else), it is worth checking the evidence. More often than not, you will then find that there is quite a lot of evidence. You might conclude that:
the evidence is poor quality,
the evidence is negative,
the evidence is suspect,
etc., etc.
So, please comment accordingly. …Just saying THERE IS NO EVIDENCE is not just wrong, it is irritating, because it gives the SCAM promoters the occasion to rightly point out that skeptics are just badly informed. And that surely is worth preventing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
Satte Ohrfeige!
"Because, when they comment on SCAM, they are not rarely wrong or at least not quite correct."
"Just saying THERE IS NO EVIDENCE is not just wrong, it is irritating, because it gives the SCAM promoters the occasion to rightly point out that skeptics are just badly informed. And that surely is worth preventing!"
Vor allem das
"they are not rarely wrong or at least not quite correct."
(und dann auch noch so allgemein (!) vom Olymp der Esoterikkritik, das hat was. Was hat Edzard Ernst wohl dazu gebracht, so kräftig auszuholen? Er bringt zwar ein Beispiel, nur eines, und das auch sehr allgemein, aber ich wette, daß ETLICHE aus der Skeptiker-Erlauchtschaft gewaltigen Mist gebaut haben.
Wenn Edzard Ernst so hart ausholt gegen die Szene,die ihn bisher so gelobt hat, dahinter steckt etwas: jahrelang angesammelter Groll. Man begibt sich doch nicht ohne weiteres in so schwindelnde Höhen und sägt am eigenen Ast.
Nun denn, nach einer so fulminanten Vorlage konnte ich gar nicht anders und habe einen Kommentar dazugeschrieben. Nach Art des Hauses (TM) selbstverständlich mit schönen Beweisstücken. Davon haben wir erstens reichlich, und zweitens sind wir nicht umsonst das härteste Forum im WWW.
https://edzardernst.com/2023/08/where-skeptics-often-go-wrong-when-commenting-on-scam-and-what-should-be-done-about-it/
[*QUOTE*]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Responses to Where skeptics often go wrong when commenting on SCAM, and what should be done about it
------------------------------------------------
HTM ter Beek on Friday 18 August 2023 at 13:21
I think I believe that when a sceptic says, “there is no evidence”, he means, “there is no convincing evidence”. But it could be that a true sceptic does not believe me.
Reply
------------------------------------------------
Mimi on Friday 18 August 2023 at 17:59
I usually include “convincing” or “quality” when referring to evidence in comments. The thing is that that is seen as an admission by believers that there really IS positive evidence or as a chance that the SCAM “might” or “could” work.
One cannot post the content of your objection as it is not reduced to a quip that “sounds good” to the untrained mind.
The difficulty in general of combatting SCAM claims is that it can’t be done in pithy phrases. All the adjectives you suggest simply create generous openings for doubt from believers. This is why most scientists do not “debate” cranks.
BTW, how often to you actually see the language you describe and do you really think most believers really notice? I think they are ready with their standby response of “science doesn’t know everything”.
Reply
------------------------------------------------
Edzard on Friday 18 August 2023 at 21:54
all I am asking is that criticism should be factually correct.
Reply
------------------------------------------------
Gerhard Bahnhof on Friday 18 August 2023 at 22:06
Dr. Ernst says, “all I am asking is that criticism should be factually correct.”
To which Gerhard replies, “Who can argue with that???”
Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
"Edzard on Friday 18 August 2023 at 21:54
all I am asking is that criticism should be factually correct."
Mit einem einzigen kurzen Satz eine vernichtende Breitseite: Edzard Ernst verlangt, daß die Kritik faktisch richtig sein soll. Womit er sagt, daß sie das eben NICHT ist. Sondern daß sie schlampig und falsch ist.
Mit einem einzigen Satz rammt er die Skeptiker in den Boden, sie, die hochen und höchsten Geister des akademischen Firmamentes...
Wenn man mich fragt: GEFÄLLT MIR!
Also habe ich die Tastatur gezückt und Edzard Ernst ein bißchen unterstützt. Man kann den armen Mann die ganze Arbeit doch nicht elleine machen lassen.
https://edzardernst.com/2023/08/where-skeptics-often-go-wrong-when-commenting-on-scam-and-what-should-be-done-about-it/
[*QUOTE*]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ama on Sunday 20 August 2023 at 09:42
Skeptics mess up badly. Just take this video, published some days ago, with a smashing headline:
Die Studie, die HOMÖOPATHIE zerstörte
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV3jr7bKi0Q
“The study which destroyed homeopathy”. Sounds impressive. But what is it about? The Shang METAstudy from 2005.
Hey, that is 18 years ago! And it did not blast homeopathy away. It is only a metastudy on some studies on homeopathy. It does not even look under the hood of those studies.
So, the headline is totally misleading. Let’s go on and view the video. If your stomach does not jump and call for fresh air. That video is one of the worst I ever saw. And about the real stuff in the Shang study? Nothing worth mentioning.
The guy in the video, a hailed skeptic, acts like a clown in a toddler birthday party. Something to learn from the video: zero.
In the last seconds one sees that this is not a really private video by someone who could not hold himself back. Looks like it is (at least partly) paid by the city of Vienna, Austria.
How can the skeptics EVER think they can get a foot on the ground against the homeopathy mafia, when they mess up in this absolutely inexcusable way? This video is a shame to mankind. But skeptics already hail it. What for? Just for padding on each other’s shoulders?
This video is a disaster. Not only because of its contents, but because it shows the whole misery of the skeptics. Real, effective, debunking? Where? Again and again they mess up. Always the same so boringly stupid mistakes. Just to name one: That in homeopathy “there is nothing in it”. For 20 years now we know that homeopathica manufacturers sell LOWLY diluted POISONOUS substances. Not over the counter, but they offer it. And when they do that that material IS produced. And it is produced because there is a market for it. There is a demand. Which means: It is used by naturopaths and homeopathic doctors. Skeptics ignore this part even when they are told about it.
Even worse: Homeopathica are sold which contain undiluted mother tinctures. Some even contain nothing but undiluted mother tinctures. Now, don’t tell me that there is nothing in an undiluted mother tincture! But skeptics ignore that. They even ignore that the German homeopathica manufacturers with these (“complex”) homeopathica rake in more than half of the whole total sales volume!
Yes, that is true. And the skeptics simply deny it. Now, who lives in a dream world, the homeopathy freaks or the skeptics?
And, think of it: This is just one of many examples.
I will show you a second one:
Der irre Schorschi und die tägliche Idiotie der Homöopathen
http://www.allaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=11618.0
You for sure have seen claims by homeopaths that homeopathy was effective in past epidemics. And they advertise homeopathy as the medicine against Covid-19. They even have a number of examples, and the best one is about homeopathy being so successfull in the influenza pandemic 100 years ago. Did anyone of you look at the details? WE did. And our findings are groundbreaking: The whole claim by the homeopaths worldwide is based on the lies and forgeries committed by THREE homeopaths 100 years ago: McCann, Dewey, and Pearson.
We have a large collection of pieces of proof. Indisputable real pieces of proof. Original material by the homeopaths themselves, found in American library archives. In our forum thread we show them. We even did some magic to make a readable OCR transcription of the 100 years old papers to get usable ASCII text.
Looking at the date of the forum thread, you will see, when we did all that: in March 2020, three and a half years ago. Now: Did even a single one of the skeptics look at the material or even write about it? No. The only one, who did something, was Aribert Deckers, and he is no skeptic! He made an English translation, linking to our forum thread:
Homeopathic mass fraud concerning claimed efficacy of homeopathy in epidemics
http://ariplex.com/folia/archives/2409.htm
This English text is online since May 2020. Did anyone of the skeptics even mention it? No.
So we can conclude (we did that long ago) that the best supporters ever of the homeopathy mafia are the skeptics. They now even act like monkeys in their videos, so horribly, that the homeopaths really can’t do anything else but to applaud, and say “Thank you for the fish.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
Nachdem ich da ein kleines bißchen Dynamit verstreut habe, herrscht skeptikerseits betretene Funkstille.
Im Abspann des Videos sieht man die Geldgeber: das österreichische Kanzleramt und die Stadt Wien. Für eines der blödesten Videos, das ich je gesehen habe. Während überall das Geld knapp ist und lebenswichtige Dinge nicht gemacht werden, weil kein Geld dafür da ist, hier wird Geld für Müll aus dem Fenster geschmissen. Die übliche Bezeichnung dafür ist Veruntreuung von Staatsgeldern.
(http://www.allaxys.com/~aktenschrank/waescheleine/M_E_G_A_PLEITE_DER_STADT_WIEN_20230818_800.jpg)
-
Die Sache geht weiter!
[*QUOTE*]
==============================================
"Have the German skeptics lost the plot? (PART 1)"
Published Sunday 07 January 2024
Many years ago, when I was first invited to give a talk to a gathering of skeptics, I started my lecture by stating: “I am very sceptical – so much so that I am even sceptical about the skeptics.” Now it seems that my words are about to acquire a new meaning.
Since several years, I am a member of the scientific committee of the German sceptic organisation GWUP and I have observed with increasing bewilderment what is happenting to this formerly solid organization.
For me, scepticism is based on at least three elements:
free thought,
open discourse,
pursuit of the truth through criticical assessment.
The leadership of the GWUP, recent developments seem to suggest, have lost sight of these elements. It occurred after the election of the new board of the GWUP in May 2023 (https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/10/shakeup-among-german-skeptics). Subsequently, the open exchange of ideas made way to an atmosphere where dissent is discouraged or stifled. Examples of this phenomenon, particularly by Hümmler the newly elected chair, are becoming increasingly evident.
The incident involving the German philosopher Andreas Edmüller might serve as an example. His presentation for a GWUP regional group on ‘The WOKE Phenomenon – A frontal assault on the values of the enlightenment?’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljm0iqqFoqk) was met with vitriol before he even spoke. One individual even called Edmüller an “asshole” (‘Arschloch’ https://twitter.com/Diaphanoskopie/status/1715441184431067512). Hümmler, rather than apologising to Edmüller for the undue abuse, chose to lecture him on politically correct language and accuse him of spreading ‘alt-right’ talking points (https://twitter.com/hummler/status/1719114920250265733).
Another example is the case of Stefan Kirsch, a long-standing member of GWUP. “He has been dismissed by Hümmler from his role as ‘communication manager’. Why? Because, would you believe it, he shared Edmüller’s presentation on X (formerly Twitter) (https://twitter.com/gwup/status/1715284877375942964).
To make matters worse, Hümmler is also said to have interfered with the organizing committee’s decisions for the upcoming Skepkon conference in May 2024. He apparently insisted on removing presentations from some GWUP members who had been critical of his leadership. In addition, Hümmler repeatedly denied the GWUP’s scientific committtee to share material with the GWUP’s members.
Up to now, I have watched this embarrassing spectacle from the sidelines and deliberately stayed out of any disputes. But I do feel strongly that skeptics, of all people, must not endanger our good causes by behaving like children on an ego-trip. We are in danger of becoming the laughing stock of our opponents!
I for one have grown increasingly sceptical about the GWUP and its future – so much so that I am now seriously considering my association with this organisation. If this embarrassingly counter-productive behavior does not demonstrably change after the annual convention in May this year, I (and probably many other German skeptics) will simply depart from the ruins of this organization.
PS
(added 8/1/2024)
I have been asked to be as transparent as possible and provide evidence for the statements I made above. Let me try:
How do I know that Hümmler has interfered with the selection of the conference organising committee? Sorry, but I have been given this information in confidence; that is, I promised to not disclose the source. I tried my best to express this situation by wording my text accordingly: “Hümmler is also said to have interfered with the organizing committee’s decisions for the upcoming Skepkon conference in May 2024. He apparently insisted on removing presentations from some GWUP members who had been critical of his leadership.” Because of the interest in this matter, have now asked some people who may know about this to come forward to confirm my statement (e.g. on social media).
As to my assertion that Hümmler “repeatedly denied the GWUP’s scientific committee to share material with the GWUP’s members”, I have first and knowledge of the situation. As a member of the committee, I was copied in to all the relevant exchanges. Moreover, his refusal is also documented in the minutes of the committee.
I hope this addresses the concerns that some readers have voiced.
==============================================
[*/QUOTE*]
https://edzardernst.com/2024/01/have-the-german-skeptics-lost-the-plot/#comment-149377
[*QUOTE*]
==============================================
ama on Monday 08 January 2024 at 01:33
The situation is not limited to the GWUP. The GWUP is only ONE playfield of many. The GWUP is only one part of the whole thing.
The situation is not new at all. I all goes back years. One of the key problems, yes, we have to talk about it, is the origin of so many skeptics. You see: Many skeptics grew up in an esoteric environment. It took them some time to realize what their environment does and is, and then to get out. But one thing they mostly did not leave: the social behaviour of esoterics. That is: avoid plain facts, get aggressive, attack ad hominem, be vulgar. Just what happened to Andreas Edmüller is nothing new.
So it is far from easy to collaborate with skeptics. In the TG-1 forum, or because of the TG-1 forum, we encountered many incidents, many collisions with skeptics. I do not say GWUP, I say skeptics. Only a part of the persons was or is in the GWUP. And, wherever it was, whenever it happened, again and again sooner or later it turned out that it is impossible to collaborate with them. Because of their behaviour. Because of what they do, or what they do not do.
One of the things they do not do: research thoroughly. And be honest about facts.
I found a thread in the TG-1 forum, which I now translated for you with deepl.com. Some quirks of the translation I mended, but I did not look at every word.
The date is 2018. More than 5 years ago. Nothing new, and the GWUP isn’t even mentioned. But you will see, that what is talked about now concerning the GWUP, already years ago was going on.
This is the thread “An die Mitleser aus scienceblogs.de und anderswo”, started by Thymian:
https://www.allaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=10176..0
[###/QUOTE###]
——————————————————————
Thymian
To the readers of scienceblogs.de and elsewhere
” on: October 08, 2018, 09:06:32 AM ”
Ladies and gentlemen, dear play-children!
Joseph Kuhn started an “experiment” yesterday:
http://scienceblogs.de/gesundheits-check/2018/10/07/ein-experiment-fragen-und-antworten-mit-christian-j-becker/
[*quote*]
Health Check
An experiment: Questions and answers with Christian J. Becker
By Joseph Kuhn / 7 October 2018 / 79.
In the last few days, there have been many posts on social media by Christian J. Becker, very sharp and deliberately provocative in tone. I blocked Mr Becker here on Health Check because of this. He is now making a suggestion:
[***quote***]
“My offer to you: I’ll behave myself and your skeptics will behave themselves. We will not disrespect each other here on your blog. As soon as I violate that, you can ban me again.”
[***/quote***]
I would like to respond to this and ask that everyone try not to jump like sheep over any rhetorical sticks that may be held out, but to discuss things objectively or, if polemically, then at a reasonable niveau.
Mr Becker has formulated the first questions:
[***quote***]
“I just have a few questions for the skeptics: how do you like the film Magic Pills, what do you think is good, what is less successful? Why are globules so important for skeptics, most globule users like me pay for globules themselves (like 85%) and also relieve the social security system, e.g. by going to alternative practitioners. Why is the scientifically proven carcinogen glyphosate so important to skeptics that they defend it?”
[***/quote***]
So there is no OT, all topics go. If the discussion becomes too much of a mud fight, there is first a reminder, then an end. Clear the stage.
[*/quote*]
1. Kuhn has fallen for Becker’s stick.
2. Kuhn asks: “… then to discuss with niveau”.
Unfortunately, as usual, this thing has failed in form and content. A high standard includes above all
1. doing proper research
2. taking note of facts, even if you don’t like them
3. reporting facts instead of concealing them
4. … and so much more
Unfortunately, the “skeptics” fail completely.
In one of the comments “borstel” writes there:
[*quote*]
borstel
7 October 2018
NB: If you like it a little more hearty, the Transgallaxys forum is just fine. However, I have to admit that even I find the posts there too polemical in the long run. So please only enjoy them in homeopathic doses…
[*/quote*]
What was said again and again by friends of the TG-1 in the early days of the TG-1 is still true today:
* Every website, every forum, every blog has its own readership.
* Every website, every forum, every blog is part of a mosaic.
* The solidarity of the individual members of the mosaic makes up the whole.
* You cannot reach all surfers with one website. So you share information with the others in the mosaic and prepare and present it in your own way.
Unfortunately, openness and solidarity are not the same thing. For example, while material researched by TG-1 or its friends was immediately passed on to the others, the reverse was not the case. The valued others remained silent. Instead, they adopted content from the TG-1 and concealed the source because the TG-1 was supposedly “not reputable”. This method of dusting off other people’s content is all too familiar from Wikipedia. It was publicised in a very nice case by one of Wikipedia’s victims. TG-1 reported on it at the time:
The IT network of today’s terrorism / Wikipedia = street war of the PR mafia and falsification gangs
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=2781.msg7833#msg7833
QUOTE:
[*quote*]
[…]
[*QUOTE*]
————————————————————————–
I have removed the link,
because a private page as evidence according to
WP:Vouchers is not so reliable.
————————————————————————–
[*/QUOTE*]
So: A private site (the word is SITE, but Wikipedia is known to be home to illiterates of all colours…) is “not so reliable” as a source. THAT’S WHY the LINK to this private site is deleted.
BUT in the confession there is this continuation:
[*QUOTE]
————————————————————————–
This could possibly be remedied by rephrasing,
since “only” two sentences were copied, …
————————————————————————–
[*/QUOTE*]
So: If this is reworded, the content can be copied.
But now we know (see above!) that
[*QUOTE*]
————————————————————————–
a private page as evidence according to
WP:Vouchers is not so reliable.
————————————————————————–
[*/QUOTE*]
If you steal their content and rephrase it, this flaw of private origin suddenly disappears.
[…]
[*/quote*]
“If you steal their content and reformulate it, this stigma of private origin suddenly disappears.” That’s exactly how it works. I wouldn’t call such behaviour sophisticated. More like antisocial. Interestingly, however, this is precisely the behaviour of those who claim to be so social. What do you call that? A split in consciousness? Incidentally, this is absolutely not an isolated case, but typical of the scene.
“borstel” writes: “that even I find the posts there too polemical in the long run.” That’s another matter. Firstly, as already mentioned, every piece of the mosaic is different, and that is deliberate. Secondly, there is a completely different element, one that has been explained over and over again, but has been and continues to be deliberately ignored:
Politeness is also just a weapon!
You can criticize the TG-1 for being tough. You can. Yes, the TG-1 is tough. Even tough as nails. But what about the rest of the world? What is it like?
Do the critics who are so dismissive of the TG-1 because of its toughness want to condemn the rest of humanity for toughness as well?
Do the critics who are so dismissive of the TG-1 because of its harshness want to accuse the rest of humanity of being rude, unobjective, polemical… and so on?
Even the most stupid critic will have to admit that large parts of the discussion with esoterics and other existences are very polite, sometimes even submissive, and have been since time immemorial.
Why then have the politeness, the friendliness and all the facts that were shown to the esotericists not only achieved nothing, but on the contrary led to the esotericists being able to spread further and further, to conquer the political system, to conquer legislation – and why do the esotericists THEREFORE now have a market worth billions, leaving behind more and more corpses, which, of course, are blamed on the evil “conventional medicine”?
Why?
Because politeness is also just a weapon.
Because esotericists lie about the facts.
Because esotericists abuse the justice system to suppress facts and to silence critics and, ideally, to destroy them altogether.
The esoteric scene is a dangerous parasite and leaves thousands of corpses in its wake every year. How little we hear about them shows how well oiled the network is in making the truth disappear.
Esotericism is murder.
Murder is not reserved for the Hamer scene alone, but other areas, such as homeopathy, also leave corpses behind. Thousands of them. Every year.
Should we just stand there smiling and waiting for the murderous rabble to bury us, or are we allowed to defend ourselves?
Is one allowed to defend himself? That is the question. That is the crucial question. And the answer is: NO! Because that would be impolite. Facts, bare facts, simple and provable facts are labelled lies and slander by the esotericists. Should we submit to this? Should we submit to a rabble of murderers and remain silent because the truth is “impolite”?
Should we submit to a rabble of murderers and remain silent because the truth is “impolite”?
This is THE key question, the question where the skeptics regularly and totally fail.
Interestingly, however, the skeptics are anything but polite. They even get very personal, insinuating, vulgar and obscene. You see this again and again in their forums and blogs. How can such a scene accuse others of what they themselves do all the time?
The TG-1 is tough as nails. It is – and this is well known – the toughest forum on the WWW. But one thing it is not is vulgar and obscene. The forum posts are very distanced. The forum posts are sometimes very pointed and very harsh, but because of the cause, because it’s about people’s lives, the biological lives of people.
Should we treat the scum of murderers with kid gloves? Can we justify to humanity and to the sick and the victims of bunglers and fraudsters that we treat the perpetrators with kid gloves and thereby show them “dignity” and “honour” and – de facto – give them recognition? No, of course not, because that makes you an accomplice to the perpetrators. But this is exactly what established journalism and others do with their “balance”, which is one of the worst crimes against the victims.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear play-children!
Anyone who thinks that you should tinker with something just for fun, that because it’s just for fun you don’t need to do any further research, that because it’s just for fun you suppress facts because they don’t look so nice (“The hook must please the fish and not the angler.”), who is what is called a “play child” on the net, should stay out of medicine as far as possible. Medicine is a matter of life and death. The TG-1 is not for play-children, nor will the dominatrices ever allow mental toddlers to spread here.
TG-1 is the toughest forum on the WWW. We are at the forefront of researching and working with authorities and media internationally to put a stop to fraudsters and murderers. Yes, we co-operate with the FBI and CIA.
We research and publish.
Unfortunately, researching and publishing is one of those things. We receive a lot of material, some of which is published immediately, and much of which goes into the armoury for later use. We publish. As we know from reliable sources, journalists are very bad about this. Current cases include this obscurity, for example:
Homeopathy adverts on Charité website cancelled – who was behind it?
By: Gita Neumann
18 Sep 2018
https://hpd.de/artikel/fuer-homoeopathie-bewerbung-charite-seite-steckte-dahinter-15962
“Who was behind it?” Yes, who was behind it? We were told that our sources had informed a number of journalists. And us. And we, the guests of TG-1, uncovered this from the information we received and further research:
* The Georg Seifert affair at the Charité in Berlin
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=9874.msg23936#msg23936
* Prof Georg Seifert at the Charité in Berlin is a liar
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=10076.0
* The evidence: Georg Seifert, Angelika Eggert, the Charité and all kinds of failures…
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=10112.0
* Lies of the Federal Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry are getting out of hand
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=10083.0
But neither the “Tagesspiegel” in Berlin nor http://www.hpd.de have uncovered the truth. Why are the Tagesspiegel and hpd.de covering up for the perpetrators?
Why?
And why is the Federal Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry lying, including in the form of a “press release”, writing on 13 September 2018
https://www.presseportal.de/pm/21085/4060536
[*quote*]
PRESS PORTAL
BPI Federal Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry
Homeopathy is an integral part of medical therapy options
13.09.2018 – 13:26
[*/quote*]
Why?
Here is an interesting statistic from a site well worth reading:
The TOP 10 German hospitals by number of cases
https://www.kliniken.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Top_10_Fallzahlen_in_Deutschland.png
https://www.kliniken.de/krankenhaus/krankenhaus-report/krankenhausstatistik.html
The TOP 10 German hospitals by number of cases (data apparently from 2015):
1st Berlin Charité 136,947 cases
2nd Munich University Hospital 78,550 cases
3. university hospital Münster 72,209 cases
4. university hospital of the Johannes
Gutenberg University Mainz 70,790 cases
5. university hospital in Tübingen 68,934 cases
6. Augsburg University Hospital with clinics
for children and adolescents 66,571 cases
7. university hospital Heidelberg 65,755 cases
8. Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH 64,980 cases
9th Erlangen University Hospital 63,038 cases
11th University Medical Centre Freiburg 62,796 cases
With more than 135,000 cases and more than 1,600 doctors, the Charité in Berlin is by far the largest hospital in Germany.
Patients do not go to this hospital for fun, but because they are ill. Many because they are terminally ill. Many die there. It’s a matter of life and death.
What could be read for several years on the website of the paediatric oncology department of the Charité in Berlin? Among other things, this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110711055412/http://paedonko.charite.de:80/forschung/ag_integrative_medizin/hintergrundinformationen/homoeopathie
QUOTE:
[*quote*]
From an empirical point of view, the effect of homeopathic high potencies is undisputed and an integral part of daily practice. Since the effects are maintained even in the molecule-free high potency range, are electronically transferable and amplifiable and can be stored digitally on CD-ROM, the active principle of action of homeopathic medicines can be described as “medicinal information”.
[*quote*]
How do you feel as a father or mother or as a directly affected cancer patient when you read this idiocy?
“Since the effects … are electronically transferable and amplifiable and can be digitally stored on CD-ROM”
How does that make you feel?
And: Do the citizens have no right to know what is happening there? Do the sick have no right to know what is happening there?
Why are the Tagesspiegel Berlin and http://www.hpd.de silent?
And why are the dear and esteemed readers from scienceblogs.de and elsewhere silent?
Why?
If the homeopaths were not covered up by fraudsters and accomplices in the Bundestag, they would all have been in prison for life long ago.
Why do the dear and highly honoured readers of scienceblogs.de and elsewhere make themselves accomplices of the perpetrators through their silence?
Or are they not allowed to say all this? Because it’s “impolite”? Because it’s “polemic”?
How many deaths are you allowed to talk about without being scolded for being “impolite” or “polemical”?
Or are we not even allowed to ask this question?
Joseph Kuhn and his “experiment”
Joseph Kuhn, paid as a recognised scientist, thinks he has to conduct an experiment. Only, unfortunately, he seems to be doing it more out of playfulness than from a genuine scientific point of view. If he were really working scientifically, he would do some REAL research. And if not research himself, then consult the results of other sources. Then he would know what has been doing the rounds on Twitter for weeks: that Christian J. Becker works with Scientology methods. If Joseph Kuhn really worked scientifically, he would research this or at least mention the research results of others.
And “borstel”? Is so subtle that he doesn’t even give the URL of TG_1: http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo
Is the URL of TG-1 taboo among the illustrious elite of scienceblogs?
Or is this question also not allowed to be asked?
What Christian Joachim Becker (Christian J. Becker) is up to has been described in TG-1 in several threads. Among others here:
Blackmail, coercion, defamation – what PR is up to today
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=10042.0
As far as the methods of Christian Joachim Becker (Christian J. Becker) and the connection to Scientology * are concerned, you should read here:
The Scientology File
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?board=205.0
The latter link is even given at the top of the forum pages.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear play-children,
The TG-1 is the toughest forum on the WWW. We save lives – while others just indulge in their illustrious pastimes.
Criticism, when it comes, requires above all … the truthfulness of those who express it.
* PS: Rumour has it that the constitutional protection agencies of several federal states have also been called in.
” Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 09:22:44 AM by Thymian ”
. Im Angesicht von Gewalt ist Höflichkeit gegenstandslos.
. At face with violence politeness is pointless.
. (User TNT in the former CDU forum)
——————————————————————
[###/QUOTE###]
Strong stuff, isn’t it? Loaded over the years like a ruby laser, and then: Blitz!
After the thread was done, the skeptics kept silent. The details mentioned by Thymian … nobody cared about them. All the mistakes and fouls by the skeptics were not taken care of, were not repaired. Not even commented. Total silence. The same is true for the journalists.
Neither skeptics nor journalists research thoroughly.
Neither skeptics nor journalists really go down to the real facts. They only enjoy talking. It all is a play for them. And just that is a sign that they really do not care about what is going on, they only want to have their fun. Thymian pointed this out clearly.
To say it in one word: The whole scene is a kindergarten.
But we are faced with real life. In the field of medicine this means pain, misery and death. Like a child with cancer is in the oncology department of the Charite in Berlin. Why did no-one write about WHO is responsible for the homeopathic mess committed there? The facts were known. They had been researched thoroughly, shown – with pieces of proof – to the public, shown to the skeptics, shown to the journalists. But the skeptics and the journalists kept silence. As far as we know in the Berlin Senate nothing happened at all, and in the Charite just the same.
How can we get fraud out of practiced medicine, when frauds are supported by silence?
How can we get fraud out of practiced medicine, when facts are concealed?
Forget the GWUP. There is no use spoiling time with them. Do something real: investigate and write. Investigate thoroughly, write with precision, comprehensible. Yes, write satire, write humour, even get tough, if necessary (and it IS necessary so often!). But stay with the facts. No meta-babble, just plain facts, with loads of pieces of proof. Babble does not convince anyone, but facts can change a mind.
And forget politeness. Like TNT wrote: “At face with violence politeness is pointless.”
Found in Usenet:
“I am polite,” the bullet said. “I knock, before I enter.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
Edzard on Monday 08 January 2024 at 08:02
can you provide a 100 word summary of your points please?
Reply
------------------------------------------------------------------
ama on Monday 08 January 2024 at 09:54
A summary? With so few words? That would only be some meta-stuff. All the facts would be missing. And THAT is THE problem we are faced with: people are bathed in meta-babble. That leads us nowhere.
Only facts teach, only facts convince. Anything else would be some fairy tale. And would make us attackable. Because we do not provide enough proof. Which is one of the problem of the skeptics: they do not have enough proofs, they are not thorough enough. They parrot the same babble over and over again – just like the esoterics.
I write about the war with language for over 2 decades now. Language is a weapon. People must learn how to use it. And we, the authors, must observe what and how and how much the readers REALLY learn from what we write. Some control of efficiency. But about nobody does that. One more problem we are faced with.
Did you view the video (on Youtube) with the speech by Andreas Edmüller on Matauranga Maori? Too many words, not enough facts. What do people learn from that? Merely nothing.
==============================================
[*/QUOTE*]
-
https://edzardernst.com/2024/01/have-the-german-skeptics-lost-the-plot-part-2/
[*QUOTE*]
===============================
Edzard Ernst
Have the German skeptics lost the plot? (PART 2)
Published Sunday 14 January 2024
When I decided to write my recent post about bizarre things going on with the GWUP (the German Skeptics), I knew, of course, that it would cause a few ripples. As a member of the GWUP scientific committee, I had been on the receiving end for the best part of a year of virtually hundreds emails and other exchanges directly releted to the matter. Initially, I had decided to stay out of all this. Therefore, I had read most of this material but had not responded to it even once.
Eventually, I had come to the conclusion that I ought to resign from the GWUP. There were two main reasons for that conclusion:
Even though I had had plenty of time and information to form my own opinion, I had little to contribute to the affair.
At the best of time, I am not a person who fits well into or likes to belong to clubs, associations, etc., and I was getting increasingly frustrated with the whole ting.
Before formulating my resignation letter, I discussed the GWUP with a trusted friend. This changed my attitude: I now felt that, before resigning, I should give it a try and make my position public in the hope that this might help the GWUP to get their act together.
Consequently, I posted my article precisely a week ago, well-aware of the fact that this would be controversial and might lead to attacks on my integrity. Having previously survived much bigger battles than that, I was not worried – at least, here I will be dealing with rational people, I thought.
As predicted, the reactions to my blog post (which was later translated and also published in German) were multipe, often fierce, and occasionally insulting. As not predicted, my assumption about dealing with rational people was erroneous.
I received (and posted) ~ 120 comments on the blog (only discarding less than a handful that were too far below the belt) and even more on social media. Many of you asked questions, and I tried to answer them the best I could. I even added a clarification to my original post. Soon I had to realize that emotions were flying high and reached into spheres that I understand little about and had even less intention to go into.
With hindsight, would I do it again?
Probably not!
Why not? Mainly because my attempt to help the GWUP was naive. I got the feeling that the rift amongst the German skeptics is too deep, too emotional, and too irrational. More than once I got the impression that it might be beyond repair.
More worringly perhaps, I also feel that some people who think of themselves ‘skeptics’ lack some of the qualities that I consider to be hallmarks of skepticism – to name just three: openness, rationality, and (self)critical thinking.
If someone voices his/her opinion (as has happened repeatedly, e.g. on social media) that I have been mistaken in what I stated about the GWUP, openness and rationality require, in my view, that this opinion is substantiated by stating exactly where I was mistaken. Just claiming “you were misinformed”, for instance, is hardly enough! After all, my post was written not least with the intention of identifying errors and misunderstandings. I never assumed that I am infallible, and therefore I invited my critics to use my blog for pointing out any errors, mistakes, misunderstandings, sources of misinformation, etc. Quite frankly, I was reminded of Randi’s bon mot: “The first thing a cult does is tell you everyone else is lying.”
And what happened?
Were my critics able to demonstrate where I have made errors or false allegations?
No – at least, I am not aware of such demonstrations which, of course, would require written statements that can be checked not just by me but by everyone else who is in the know.
Based on this situation, I feel tempted to conclude that the multiple claims of me having made false allegations are, in fact, false allegations.
Of course, I could be wrong!
And because I could be wrong, I am issuing herewith yet another invitation: if you are in possession of facts that contradict my previous post, here is your chance to disclose them by posting a comment below.
_____________________
And where do we go from here?
I will postpone my decision to leave the GWUP for a few weeks and hope that, contrary to my pessimism, the GWUP might manage to get its act together. The more I try to understand the reasons for the rift, the more I feel that they are emotionally hyped trivialities. With a healthy dose of openness, rationality, and (self)critical thinking, the rift might still be repairable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
Dr. med. Hanjo Lehmann on Sunday 14 January 2024 at 11:42
As an outsider, before Edzard’s blog I didn’t even know that a GWUP (Gesellschaft für die wissenschaftliche Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften = Society for the Scientific Study of Parasciences) existed. To Germans the abbreviation “GWUP” already sounds funny, reminding of words like “Wupps”, defined as “lautmalende Charakterisierung einer ruckartigen Bewegung”.
As to the society’s work – scientifically studying parasciences – I don`t really feel the need for such an institution. Doesn’t any kind of science start dealing with public convictions about some subject? Convictions which nearly always turn out to be mistaken? So that anyone working scientifically – not only the GWUP members – is automatically revealing parascience and fighting against it? (Unfortunately, we have to state: The most relevant parasciences are and have always been not systems like homeopathy or astrology, but religions.)
But what about the persons who feel the need to found a society like GWUP, or to become a member? My feeling is that institutions claiming to promote goals which every normal person should support (like “Red Cross” or “Arbeiterwohlfahrt”, or, concerning science, the GWUP) usually do NOT attract every normal person. More often they attract people who apart from claiming those goals intend to pursue their own goals. A famous example is this good man from Bethlehem who 2000 years ago proclaimed universal love – attracting first a power-greedy guy named Petrus who taught that love needed a boss, and after him a clever manager named Paulus who taught that love needed marketing.
-------------------------------------
[...]
RPGNo1 on Sunday 14 January 2024 at 17:31
The GWUP Science Council has answered 10 questions to Andreas Edmüller, who has thanked them
Another positive news: Jan Oude-Aost has also apologized for his unsuccessful tweet about the lecture. Andreas Edmüller accepted the apology without reservation and the story is now closed for him.
http://blog.projekt-philosophie.de/liberalismus/das-woke-phaenomen-hut-ab-der-wissenschaftsrat-der-gwup-hat-meine-10-fragen-beantwortet/
-------------------------------------
[...]
Reply
Nadine on Saturday 20 January 2024 at 14:54
Update on cancel culture and the german skeptics:
Unfortunately only available in german
A good discussion:
Cancel Culture in der GWUP?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktxVW8udWHI
“Dawn of the GWUP. Der neue woke Vorstand, die Skepkon und wie ich schon wieder gecancelt wurde”
in englisch: “Dawn of the gwup. The new woke board, the Skepkon, and how I got canceled again”
https://scienceblogs.de/bloodnacid/2024/01/20/dawn-of-the-gwup-der-neue-woke-vorstand-die-skepkon-und-wie-ich-schon-wieder-gecancelt-wurde/?all=1
===============================
[*/QUOTE*]