by T. Stokes 2/4/07
I confess I am very sceptical, about sceptics.
Because most have never studied the subject, to be
sceptical means you have to know what you are sceptical
about. Instead, this often means something needs explaining to you
who should actually be open minded, as most scepticism is a mask for ignorance,
or another agenda.
While moderate scepticism is a healthy and normal
reaction, a new breed of British sceptics such as the disturbed Susan
Blackmore http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/ and manic
Richard Wiseman are entrenched in Denialism and like the Pope, claim an
infallibility in what they teach.
This can be a recognised mental disorder and is part of the
"Pathological scepticism constellation". Their often confused
explanations of paranormal happenings are less feasible in logic than the
happenings themselves.
This is because to obtain research funding means you first have to reach the
conclusions of the grants-givers - in other words the answers are first on
the test sheet and you have to provide the questions.
The children's conjurer James Randi is a case in point,
with his constant attacks on alternative medicine and the paranormal, even when
proved wrong does not admit so.
This idea that a person with some accreditation in one
area qualifies him to speak in another field, has made fools of many
psychologists who speak out of their depth on psychic subjects.
James Randi's views on Homeopathy are only eclipsed by the
remarks of buffoon astronomer Patrick Moore on Astrology and are a case in
point.
There have been attacks in the press of late on several of
the psychic worlds top performers. These people were tested by
scientists, assumed genuine and given the green light, yet are now attacked on
a regular basis as fraudulent by sceptics and denialists.
Yet it is true that the realm of the supernatural is as
genuinely ridden with fakes, quacks and the deluded, as psychology and
allopathic medicine - probably more so.
Scientists are in the very worst categories here, where
there is more fraud than in any other arena of life.
They are more guilty of observer bias, filtered statements, using spurious
facts, altering data, twisting statistics and using only positive study reports
than in any other aspect of junk science - and such tricks as
conducting an experiment 20 times to document the result of just one test are
common place.
A favourite trick to skew statistics is to ask the
question;
" do you believe in the paranormal?" Surveys average out at
between 63% and 75% in favour - but if the question is asked:
"do you believe in the paranormal, e.g. Loch Ness monsters and Father
Christmas?" - answers drop drastically from 7% to 10% in favour.
The question is rarely shown in full.
Another trick is "the aunt
sally". This was pulled off beautifully by New Labour to
appease British Muslims that there was no torture at Guantanamo bay.
Photos were shown in a downmarket daily newspaper in Britain showing proof of
definite torture, (getting the editor the sack). Yet these were quickly
disproved as fake - thus also condemning as fake all future news and photos.
I also know from my time in both psychic testing, alternative medicine and
adult education that the professors practice of asking for student work on a
topic, then masking up and passing the students written work as their own is
common place.
* The biggest break through in recent years - the cloning
of Dolly the sheep by Prof. Ian Wilmott, is the subject of a court inquiry and
he has been accused of stealing the work of several other experts.
* Child abuse expert Marietta Higgs was herself accused of child abuse over
spurious midnight searches of children's bodies and has since been ridiculed
and disowned by her own colleagues.
* The South Korean world expert on stem cell science, Hwang Woo-Suk
admitted on Dec.22 2005 he had stolen information then made up stories on
a major
breakthrough.
* Top British psychiatrist Raj Persaud is presently under scrutiny for
plagiarising from colleagues papers and studies.
* Dr. John Sudbo faked up 38 key cancer research papers, and fooled the Lancet,
BMJ. and the New England Medical journal. The report in the
newspapers of July 3 2006 said it was under pressure from the sponsors
that pushed him over the edge.
* Soviet archive photographs, seen alongside Red Cross pictures, and R.A.M.C.
photos cast doubt on the official version of German gas ovens and how many
actually died in there in W.W.II.
* Professor Roy Meadows, a senior British scientist with his now discredited
"Meadows Law" which said the chances of 2 cot deaths in one family
being
accidental was a shocking 73 million to one.
* The British government scientists now admit they lied, and that "gulf
war syndrome" does exist and in all probability is from banned chemicals
used
in its weaponry.
The spurious research is often sold in industrial espionage to other cronies,
companies or research groups and this applies to all areas of the scientific
community but particularly in the Pharmaceutical world. In fact
the man who tried to whistle-blow and stop the Thalidomide pharmaceutical
tragedy, Australian academic Bill McBride, was hounded out as a liar -
similar to Britain's case of Britain's Roger Lacy, who early on warned of the
coming B.S.E crisis and was ridiculed, then hunted out of his job.
One of the results of the discrediting of science is that
60% of our school-children now question its relevancy as a subject, as doctors
and scientists opinions can so easily be bought for all colours of the rainbow.
A philosopher once said; "once people believe in
nothing, they can believe in anything" and the non-belief
constellations that make up scepticism have
become a belief system of their own.
The unnamed soldier who told of the suspicious deaths of
recruits at Deepcut army barracks and the postmen who told of the racial and
sexual bullying in the Royal Mail and the whistle blowers on corruption and
harassment in the N.H.S, also suffered extreme personal hardships.
Because of the rule that only positive reporting is
published on the sciences, vested interests rule current scientific theory
and drug companies will have
many doctors on the payroll who will put their pay packet before the welfare of
patients. The list of drugs with harmful side effects is as wide as
Cherie Blair's
mouth.
Why we need teams of beagle dogs wired into masks smoking
350 cigarettes each day to observe nicotine poisoning is beyond me and this
test has been
done regularly in laboratories around Britain for 35 years.
If the research grants stopped so would the abuse but the scientific community
is generally without morals. Even germ warfare establishments where
experiments have escaped into the wider community such as in the
A.I.Ds virus case and similar, have ruthlessly covered up their mistakes.
The hugely rich and influential Rockefeller
Organisation, is perhaps best known for owning Standard oil, and its
international financing and money supply empire. They also have
multi-national drug organisations under the
umbrella shared with the Rothschild family. These are perhaps the
world's most morally bankrupt industries, with links to the arms
multi-nationals.
Rothschild's bank financed Britain's wars with Germany in both world wars, not
only loaning monies at huge interest rates but taking back the monies for arms
sales and for medical supplies. They were part of a monetary supply
apparatus that also funded the Third Reich
(now known as the E.E.C). I once witnessed an interview with a long term
senior Rockefeller secretary and was in shock for weeks over what I heard.
In the USA alone 180,000 deaths each year from misdiagnosed prescription drugs
and 1.5 million Americans hospitalised in 1978 from misdiagnosed
pharmaceutical drugs - 30% of those suffered further effects from those drugs.
The scientists tell us that mercury amalgam fillings are
safe and we need chlorine and fluoride in our drinking water but these 3
substances are among the most toxic on the planet.
Yet a study of 1600 scientists beliefs in America in 21
top Universities by researcher Elaine Howard-Ecklund, revealed that scientists
overwhelmingly
followed the New age beliefs that:
"Old ways no longer worked";
"trying to instill guilt over a man's death on a cross was usually
counter-productive";
"no religious body should have revenge as its dogma base";
"no wars for religion";
"more spirituality, less religion";
So if scientists are not anti-paranormal or alternative medicines why do they
appear to be so in studies?
And if this was their collective mind set, why do many accept funding from
extremist Christian groups, etc?
Watch for junk science in Allopathic Medicine. The
supernatural, health and diet, psychology, politics, and news programmes in particular
and if a
sceptic blasts your beliefs - ask him to prove the paranormal does NOT exist!
Further reading New Dawn magazine - Health section.
The psychological ramifications of scepticsm. T Stokes
William J Beatty. Skepticism
British medical journal, Scepticism.
Prof. Brian Josephson, see works of.
Nexus magazine. Rockefeller family.
Denialism scepticism and Marxism, T Stokes
Skepticism in illness - Prof. H. Cohen