Sandy Hook Tragedy Claimed to be a “Hoax”

We received the following unsolicited e-mail entitled “Gun Control is Treason” from freedomnetwork@global.net on Saturday the ninth of February 2013. To say it is in poor taste is a massive understatement, it does, however, provide an insight into a deluded mind and the lengths that the American right-wing nut jobs will go to, to justify the insane notion that gun ownership is a necessary right.

Overwhelming evidence has surfaced to prove that Sandy Hooks is a hoax. For example, the recently released CNN helicopter footage that is supposed to show children escaping from the school is obviously set somewhere else.

Unsolicited e-mail claiming that the Sandy Hook tragedy is a hoax.

The “grieving” parents are surprisingly joyful during their interviews. The footage from the early hours of the incident shows a traffic pattern that makes it impossible for emergency vehicles to operate. There are many other points with various degrees of credibility, but anyone doing serious research should find plenty to disprove the “official” story. In spite of this, many people still manage to believe the TV version of the Sandy Hoax drama.

The critics often say that it is crazy to believe that Sandy Hook is a hoax, but this is simply an irrational emotional response. Their main argument is that the media and the government would not make such a big lie and then lie so poorly. This is the exact working principle of the “Big Lie”, one of Hitler’s techniques. Many people know about this technique and then fall for it anyway. Another common claim is that it’s hard to fake that many deaths, but the “victims” could have been easily paid off to live with new identities. Regardless of the facts, sheeple believe what is shown on TV. They are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome – they’ve learnt to love Big Brother. Accurate information and logic do not matter to them. Without the means to defend themselves, they are just sheep being led to the slaughter.

The proposed gun control legislation does not improve public safety, but reduces the ability of the people to resist tyranny. High capacity magazines are not necessary to kill unarmed people or commit crime, but are very important for fighting armed minions of a tyrannical government, and deterrring a foreign enemy invasion. Making fighting weapons less available to people reduces their ability to defend themselves. People without the ability to defend themselves are at greater risk than people that can defend themselves.

While the threat of a crazy gunman exists, it pales in comparison to the threat of a murderous government. Murderous governments are not fiction, but historical fact and have emerged virtually everywhere where gun control has been put in place. Even today, millions of political prisoners are being tortured to death in communist countries. People point to the many Western nations that have gun control but no murderous governments as examples, but these governments know that if they were to start killing their own people, Americans would step in. America is the last bastion of freedom on the planet and that is why America is under sustained attack.

The biggest threat to America today comes from within. That threat is traitors in high positions. These traitors work covertly and watch their actions carefully lest they become exposed in a manner that removes the doubt of the public, most of whom cannot believe that such massive treason can take place in our society. They have chosen the ideal cover for their goals of subverting America – the guise of public servants. Using their positions of power, they have gradually eroded our freedoms and rights to further increase their own power. America is now on the brink of dictatorship, where this small group of traitors can have unlimited control of the nation.

The ignorance of the public makes tyranny possible. Many people still believe the Sandy Hoax made for TV drama/story. This amazing feat of ignorance can only be explained by a mental disorder. This type of mass psychosis is one of the conditions necessary for a brutal regime to come to power with popular support. This is the type of mass psychosis that has fueled the public support of murderous dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. This type of mass psychosis is now prevalent in America and the traitors know it. It is no surprise that they are now seeking to disarm the rest of us, so that we cannot resist their planned tyranny.

Gun control legislation is in direct violation of the Constitution that the legislators have sworn an oath to uphold. The Constitution recognizes and protects the right of the People to own firearms and to use them for self-defense. These are not privileges granted by the Constitution, they are God-given rights that are recognized and protected under the Constitution. They are rights that every legislator has sworn an oath to protect, regardless of religion. Legislation that violates the Constitution is an act of treason. Planning such legislation is planning to commit treason. Feindstein is one of the people planning this, but she is not alone. Feindstein herself has suspicious links to communist China. With leaders like this, it is not surprising that China’s economy bloomed while California’s withered. Her co-conspirators may have similar alternative allegiances. If they can disarm the people and rewrite the Constitution, there will be nothing to stop them from making policies to imprison people opposed to them, or to use their positions of power for profit at the expense of the nation. They are already filthy rich from having done that.

Some people say that the weapons available to the people are not sufficient to protect freedom from tyranny, because the state has much more powerful weapons. There is truth to this criticism and this is because the state has been gradually eroding self-defense rights of the people for some time now. Under the Constitution the people should be able to possess the same weapons as the government, without restrictions. That includes fully-automatic weapons. Needing a permit for concealed carry is already an infringement of the Second Amendment. At the same time, the state has been arming itself to the teeth, including armored vehicles and drones. These weapons are a threat to our freedom and our lives. That money should be used to build our communities, instead of holding us hostage. The legislation that infringes on our rights needs to be removed and our rights must be restored and vigilantly guarded

While we’re not sure if this e-mail is meant to be taken seriously or not, we have discovered that there is a Freedom Network who peddle this kind of insensitive conspiracy nonsense.

Just to make it clear, we here at the Rational Skeptics Society do NOT believe that the tragedy that befell those people at Sandy Hook was a government led conspiracy designed to introduce gun control. Furthermore, we not only support gun control, but go as far as to recommend that recreational gun ownership be outlawed. For far too long, law abiding citizens have been held to ransom at the hands of the gun industry, and its political arm the NRA. Americans who fear that their government might implement a policy which would require an armed response from its citizenship, would do well to recognise that they are no longer living under the reign of a foreign king, rather they elect their own leaders. The real threat they face, (and where their fear should be directed), is from the National Rifle Association, whose constant political interference has enabled American citizens, not to rise up against an imagined governmental threat, but to slaughter other citizens with guns that are readily available under the pretence that a person has some kind of “right” to own them. The sad truth is that organisations like the NRA, who have no mandate from the citizens they claim to represent, poke their nose into politics in order to protect their money-making industry.

Like 911, holocaust denial or the belief that global warming is only being espoused by scientists so that they can get grant money, there is a lie around the Sandy Hook incident, but it is not that it is a hoax, it is that there WAS a hoax. The “hoax” has been invented by right-wing nut jobs, who are trying to make out that people should be more afraid of the government they elected, than the crazy people who are allowed to bear arms under the out-dated, backward thinking, Second Amendment.

We would like to extend our sympathies to all those in Sandy Hook, and everywhere else, who have been touched by gun violence, and hope that the rest of us have the courage and fortitude to take responsibility for ensuring that we do everything we can to prevent these tragedies from happening again.

GD Star Rating
loading...
GD Star Rating
loading...

Why Wars Should be a Thing of Our Ugly History

Political Change

For most of modern times, the only form of political change which western governments can affect on other nations, are leveraged by either economic policies or the waging of war.  Both of these policies boil down to bullying and constitute a large part of the reason why the “west” is despised by the “middle east”.  From the twenty year old economic sanctions and two wars waged in Iraq, to the constant posturing with Iran and North Korea, political changes desired by the “west” have been, and are, pursued using only one threat or another.  This is not something new however, anyone with any exposure to the inner workings of politics, or indeed the negotiations of two or more opposing sides, will know that those negotiations necessarily involve trading for one set of rights by offering to sacrifice another set of rights.  This method of politics was initially born through the way in which humans have evolved to trade items with one and other, but has been compounded by the communal nature of humans which allows for those who are less gifted at those trade negotiations to have intermediaries trade on their behalf, and as the relationships and numbers of  humans became more complex, individuals would have been successful enough to garner the support of very large numbers of people.  These intermediaries are now called politicians, and those in the “west” use, for wont of a better term, the trade negotiation techniques that have provided wealth for their supporters/electorate.

Why War Is Out-Moded

The political events of early two thousand and eleven should be a massive learning experience for the “west”.  We have been shown twice, how political change can be affected without any of the old dictum’s that are held so dear to the “old guard” of politicians.  We are in the unique position of making known to those whom we elect, that it is so much better to have the people of that region affect change, rather than the knee-jerk reaction of slaying our brothers and sisters.  We now have proof twice over, that the people of a country, especially countries whose populace has been dictated to, have more power to affect peaceful political change, than all the bombs or bullets any government can send to sway that populace to their own end.

Go Egypt and Tunisia

GD Star Rating
loading...
GD Star Rating
loading...

Talk Sense Podcast Ep 1

 

Download this Episode


Episode 1: Religion and Identity Formation

Intro and Welcome
Hello, and welcome to the rational skeptics society début pod cast. This series, entitled “Talk Sense”, aims to deal with various issues surrounding free-thinking, from the dangers posed by religious wish-thinking, to the downright absurdity of conspiracy theories. We explore why secularism and humanitarianism are better sources of morality, and form better platforms for government and national policy making than the religious alternatives. Ever wondered why belief in a deity is intellectually untenable? Talk Sense touches on the logical fallacies that make such beliefs untenable, elaborates on the reasons why atheism is not the same as religion, and explores many of the misconceptions perpetuated about atheists and atheism in general, as well as delving into the deeper philosophies of the human condition. Please feel free to visit us at http://www.rationalskepticssociety.com/

In this episode we are going to look at religion and how it is used to form identities at both the individual and group levels. We will see how when humans use religion as a method of identity formation rather than as a source of philosophy or morality, they are less likely to notice or give credence to the internal contradictions and inaccuracies of individual bible teachings, as these mean less than the overall goal of group identity and belonging to one group or another.

Humans as Social Animals
In order to fully understand the power of identity formation, it is first necessary to understand a little about the human animal. We as animals, have evolved in such a way as to be social, that is individual humans have a greater chance of survival and propagation of our genes, if we belong to a wider community. The size of such communities which offer the best chances of survival have been calculated by anthropologists to be around 150-200 individuals. Now this is important, because humans evolved in communities of limited size, and because these communities would have been in competition for limited resources, the communities whose members felt compelled to go to greater lengths to secure more resources would have been more successful. This basic premise is the foundation for the first forms of governance, since it is likely that the communities in which alpha individuals had a large number of followers would be more successful than communities in which the alpha members had smaller numbers of followers, if for no other reason than more hands gather more food. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between the optimum tribe size calculated by anthropologists and the ability to gather and feed that number of individuals versus greater and few numbers.

Given that community size has a relationship with both communal and individual success; it is not too much of a stretch to say that maintaining tribe size is fairly important. So how best to stop the tribe becoming too big or too small? One way would be through employing group identity. I should stress that there is no conscious effort to control tribe size, rather it is under the influence of a selection pressure, namely that any tribe which didn’t use group identity was more likely to grow or shrink to a size which would ultimately force members to try to join another more successful tribe, if the new tribe does use group identity, then there is an increased risk that the new comers would be treated with hostility, especially if the new tribe was already operating near to its optimum size.

When the first group identities were formed, I imagine religion would still have been nothing more than an abstract set of superstitious rituals, there is certainly no reason to assume that it was involved in the initial group identities when first they formed. It is easy to imagine though, that as time passed, these rituals became more and more of a group activity which helped to cement relationships between the individuals of any given tribe. As these rituals became more and more elaborate, so too the identity of the group and the sense of belonging to that group would have increased. This is something I call the extended family cohesion idea, because it is highly likely that members of any given tribe would be closely related to nearly every other member of that tribe, and just like families today, we tend to spend more time and therefore form stronger identity bonds, with close relatives, and as the relative becomes more distant we spend less time with them, and therefore tend to form weaker identity bonds with them. These rituals would have served as an excellent common activity that would have helped strengthen identity bonds with other tribe members who may not have made up the immediate family of any given individual, again helping to cement group identity by reinforcing the sense of belonging.

With these three components in place, an interesting thing is likely to have occurred. As the rituals became more complex and rules for their observance put in place, some of the aspects which make family units, and communities successful, namely the notion of a leader which protects and provides, seeped into the rituals. Essentially the rituals evolved into the first proto-religions. So by aping the hierarchical nature of families and on a larger scale, communities, religions dupe people into conferring unwarranted respect to the rituals, superstitions and ultimately stories which make up the religion. This mechanism actually has an evolutionary component to it as well. Since every family, with or without religion, functions best as a part of a community of like-minded individuals, any religion, cult, or set of rituals, which did not provide for familial identity to grow into community identity, would ultimately die out. This is consistent with the religions we see in the world today, there is no religion which does not do this and which is growing its member base.

These three things, family, community and ritual work together to aid the creation and maintenance of identity and can be seen at work today in things like nationalism. Nearly every time a politician has an extra marital affair the media make a huge furore even though having sex with someone other than the marital partner has absolutely no impact on the ability of that individual to do the job they have been employed to do. Children in the US have to stand each morning and recite some words in order to reinforce the sense of American identity. When a terrorist attack takes place politicians usually appeal to the population to “stand together and show we will not be defeated”, they essentially ask that we use the attack to help cement our national identity, and in doing so, solidify the other or out group, which is now the common enemy.

It can be seen in sport through the ritual haka performed by the New Zealand rugby union squad, for example, the in group/out group mentality as demonstrated by supporters of one football team or another, which incidentally can also lead to conflicts with supporters of rival teams. Even the tools used are the same, in the case of sport it is symbols in the form of uniforms and badges as well as chants and songs, in nationalism it is the colour schemes used by left or right wing political groups, national flags and national anthems. The evolutionary element is also present in sport in so far as, individuals which identify strongly with the team tend to be better team workers and hence improve the overall performance of the team. The same can be said of the military wing of a nation, were soldiers are positively encouraged to form strong identity bonds with their various regiments.

So what are the implications of religion as an identity rather than an answer to where we came from?

If we look at religion as a way to form, and reinforce identities we quickly see why today, religious people take disproportionate offence when the religion to which they subscribe, is criticized. The criticism in effect is an attack on the group to which they have an affinity, but more importantly, it is an attack on their identity. The reaction therefore is to become defensive about their identity, and to attack the “out group” which they perceive as the threat to that identity. A vivid real-life example of this very point is in evidence today when one listens to the pope in his attack on what he terms “new atheists”. Basically he is appealing to all religious people regardless of what religion they ascribe to, to recognise a common enemy. It is important to note that because of the strong evolutionary component involved in the role identity plays in humans, this reaction is not just bred into us, but also perfectly natural. In fact it should be expected in any scenario whereby an individual’s identity is threatened and be proportional to the weighting of that identity, that is to say, that if the identity threatened is of great importance to the individual, the reaction will be stronger than if the identity is of lesser importance. For example a person who is an ardent fan of a particular sports team, and holds only a “cultural” belief in a given religion would be expected to react weakly to a criticism of their religion, but strongly to a criticism of their favoured sports team. Conversely if the person is highly religious and only weakly supports the sports team then the opposite reaction would be expected.

Another interesting implication is that because the selection pressure was in favour of identity formation and not information fidelity, the individuals would not have evolved to care about that fidelity. This means that when contradictions and inconsistencies formed there was no evolutionary penalty if they were not discovered. In point of fact it could be argued that if an individual did uncover and be affected by an inconsistency in the teaching of a superstition, ritual or religion, in such a way as to abandon the practice thereof, then they would be disadvantaged by the subsequent lack of that tool for identity formation. This effectively means that religions would be immune to effects of information fidelity until the environment in which they operate changes sufficiently to allow individuals to suffer no penalty for abandoning that form of identity formation.

The other obvious side effect of religions as a form of identity is that because the individuals are using them as tools for recognizing and identifying who is a part of the “in group” and who is part of the “out group”, then when faced with an atheist they not surprisingly do the same. This means that they fundamentally misunderstand the atheist position since they confuse the identity and the claims which their superstition makes and then transpose those same two very different things unto atheism. Again it is important to realize that they would not be consciously making the assumption but rather humans have evolved in such a way that this is what they do when faced with an unfamiliar person. We try to identify what we have in common, and in some cases we falsely identify a trait as something we also possess. In this case the false assumption is generated because the person is trying to categorize whether the atheist is part of the “in group” or “out group”, when in fact the atheist’s position is simply a lack of belief in the TRUTH of the religion and has no evolutionary tie to identity formation as religion does. Actually, atheism would have had a negative correlation to evolutionary success since the lack of belief runs contrary to the very thing which made rituals and superstitions advantageous, namely that the rituals would not have helped the atheist form the inter-communal bonds needed to form a strong group identity or sense of belonging, and hence they would not have felt compelled to go the extra mile when hunting and gathering. It is possible that this may also have affected the atheist’s ability to find a mate within the group and successfully pass on the genes for free-thinking.

“Hold on”, I hear you cry, “surely atheism is used for identity formation too, after all, it is a part of the Rational Skeptics Society’s identity?!” This is absolutely correct, but let me repeat the point I made earlier, if the environment in which the selection pressure which favours rituals as identity formers changes sufficiently, then the door opens for identity formers which are devoid of ritual and superstition. This is exactly what has occurred in the very recent past, allowing for skeptical groups to form without an evolutionary penalty. In short, while atheism may be used as a tool for identity formation, it still is not a belief system.

So what have we learned? If we view religion as a way of explaining the universe we see around us, we run into the fact that all religions contain fundamental inaccuracies which render them useless for the task. However, if we look at religion as being a tool individuals use to form both personal and group identities, then the problems of inaccuracies in its teaching as far as truthfulness goes, disappear. Moreover, we can clearly see how religion operates under the remit of evolution by natural selection.

That’s it for this episode of Talk Sense, I hope you have enjoyed the show and don’t forget to visit the site at http://www.rationalskepticssociety.com/. Until next time goodbye, and remember; God doesn’t exist, 911 was not a conspiracy, vaccinations are a GOOD idea, and if alternative medicine worked it wouldn’t be alternative. Deal with it!!

GD Star Rating
loading...
GD Star Rating
loading...

The Rational Skeptics Society stands in Support of Wikileaks and its Founder

The Rational Skeptics Society is often skeptical of conspiracy theories, from 9/11 to the idea that vaccines cause more harm than good. Today, however, the Rational Skeptics Society will officially oppose the US conspiracy against Wikileaks, from the arrest of its founder to the incitement to murder perpetrated by the american right. The Rational Skeptics Society stands firm in its support of free speech, free expression and freedom from US intervention against any person/peoples or organisation, whether the intervention takes the form of pressure to arrest, pressure to persecute or pressure to deny services.

GD Star Rating
loading...
GD Star Rating
loading...

God Is Dead

So I know there’s some of you who quite rightly don’t really care much for existentialism – That said I think Nietzsche stands above most. And as such thought it might be worth posting this. Hope it’s interesting :)

For the philosopher Ricoeur, philosophical hope is the binary opposite to anguish, in that it is the only way such a state of being can be countered. Whereas Nietzsche’s statement that “God is dead” is a metaphor that claims civilisation has advanced to the point where the concept of God is no longer relevant to human society. The concept of God is innately connected to the idea of hope, and since Nietzsche rejects God, it stands to reason that he also rejects the idea of hope as a means to balance anguish. As such we can see a similarity in that both Nietzsche and Ricoeur both seem to agree that primary affirmation and hope does not reconcile our anguish, rather upholds it. Nietzsche however, takes the view that affirmation in itself is being, rather than a mode of being.

“What is affirmation in all its power? Nietzsche does not do away with the concept of being. He proposes a new conception of being. Affirmation is being.” (Deleuze 2006)

To make sure I am not guilty of the verbal fallacy of equivocation, I must make clear what is meant by the term ‘hope’ in both a religious or philosophical perspective. Even though the source of hope may differ, its meaning remains the same; in that it is a belief that a positive outcome will occur, regardless of circumstance. For Ricoeur however, hope never entirely evaporates anguish – the two are necessary for each other to propagate, similar to a ying-yang concept of light and dark combining, to create meaning out of nothingness. Nietzsche seems to agree that hope is a perpetuator of anguish, but refers to this as an evil rather than a means to balance it. As we can see from the following quote:

“Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torments of man.” (Friedrich Nietzsche 1986)

This links back to Nietzsche’s assertion that God is dead. In order for man to be free, he must embrace his anguish and become stronger from it – in order to transcend into the Übermensch (Superman). It is hope that holds us back from achieving such a goal, which in Nietzsche’s view should be a transcendence that all people should aspire to. At the core of western religious belief is the notion that there is a better life awaiting one who follows the doctrine of said religion, thus creating hope in spite of whatever unfavourable circumstances people find themselves in, but in doing so; leaves one complacent to accept their anguish, and forever remain in the shadow of religion.

If we take both accounts to be true, they appear to be somewhat paradoxical; if hope is simultaneously the cause and the upholder of anguish, then how can anyone break for of it? The answer, to which Nietzsche would agree – as mentioned above, is that isn’t possible and therefore you shouldn’t try to. It’s no surprise he would take this view however, as in his own life, Nietzsche was no stranger to inescapable anguish; as a long term sufferer of a variety of unpleasant illnesses since his childhood, it is easily understood why he would give up on the idea of hope and seek solace in another way of thinking. Which makes a great deal of sense, as it is fair to assert that in one way or another, anguish is an inescapable aspect of life. Instead of waging a war that can never be won, it is better to lay down arms – and focus on ways in which we can improve ourselves, despite our anguish. There is an irony of course, that many religious doctrines say a similar thing about anguish, pain and suffering as necessary evils, in order for one to become closer to God. But this highlights perfectly what Nietzsche was trying to portray by stating that “God is dead”. The journey one takes whenever one tries to transcend themselves – will lead them to the same place, but the key difference is that the hope that belief in God provides is no longer necessary. All that we need is the will to better ones self, in essence to become our own God.

In reference to Ricoeur, true anguish in the form of ‘The wrath of God’ is a symbolic interpretation of the fruitless attempt to reconcile human suffering to some form of good. As the following extract explains:

“… But unlike absolute knowledge, primary affirmation secretly armed with hope, brings about no reassuring Aufhebung; it does not surmount, but affronts, it does not reconcile, but consoles; this is way anguish will accompany hope to the last day.” (Ricoeur 1965)

This seems to indicate that Ricouer has a problem with the idea of a metaphysical solution/ reflection as a means to escape anguish, by comparing it to Hegel’s concept of absolute knowledge, which he describes as a ‘journeys end’ where such knowledge is found, perhaps much in the same way Nietzsche describes, when one transcends into the Übermensch.

In conclusion, it does seem that what Nietzsche meant by stating ‘God is dead’ is a form of what Ricoeur refers to as true anguish in relation to philosophical hope, in that both conclude that hope is inextricably and unavoidably linked to anguish. However the key difference is that Nietzsche saw affirmation as being in itself, and as such – hope is not necessary to achieve self betterment. This is a powerful sentiment, as it is easy to imagine the benefits of such a perspective, rather than focusing in on what causes us anguish, therefore ending up being trapping ourselves in negativity. We accept its inevitability, and use it to propel us forward, without the constraints of religious dogmatism and restriction.

GD Star Rating
loading...
GD Star Rating
loading...

Skeptics Overdose on Homeopathic Tablets

The Mersyside Skeptics Society, today arranged a demonstration of the complete ineffectiveness of homeopathic “remedies”, by assembling outside branches of the British pharmaceutical retailer Boots, and taking large quantities of homeopathic tablets.  The MSS said they were trying to show the scientific absurdity of homeopathy, and have asked Boots to stop selling such products.  Boots responded that they follow guidelines laid down by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society regarding the retail of alternative medicine.  I suppose it is not surprising that a retailer wants to take the opportunity to sell a product for which there is a demand, but given that, in the United Kingdom at least, people are told that for minor injuries and illnesses we should go to the pharmacist, the fact that the most familiar pharmacy here is actively pushing what amounts to a sugar tablet, as a real remedy, can be seen as wilful deception of the public.  After all it was only one week ago that Jim McCormick was arrested for selling what amounts to  a dowsing rod that detects bombs! In short retailers, especially those which the public perceive as being or having expertise in a given field, have a social responsibility to ensure that the products they sell do what they “say on the tin”. In fact they should also be bound by law to ensure that they are not an unwitting pawn in the deception of the public.

One of the more disturbing things about homeopathy in the UK is that between 2005 and 2008 the NHS, the UK’s health service, spent £12m on homeopathic “remedies” according to a freedom of information request by Channel Four. It is likely that this money was used to employ homeopaths in so called “super clinics”. Given that there is an absolute dearth of psychologists which NHS patients can see, it is unforgivable that a government charged with the well-being of its constituents, wastes valuable resources on a pseudo-science like homeopathy, instead of providing professionals that can actually help people. As I understand it, the decision to fund homeopathy comes from the desire to make the NHS into a more holistic health care system, and while this is a good idea, in-so-far-as people often can be helped in non-medical ways to deal with the mental aspects of being told one has serious health problems, it is ridiculous in the extreme to waste money on what amounts to a placebo.

Unsurprisingly, the homeopaths think that the MSS are conducting an “ill advised stunt”, even though the Society of Homeopaths said that they don’t expect the MSS members to suffer any ill effects!  This is a tacit admission by the Society of Homeopaths, that their “medicine” is nothing more than harmless/useless tablets.  That Paula Ross, the Society of Homeopaths chief executive, also said that the MSS were conducting an, “Ill advised” stunt, shows beyond doubt, that at least one of the members of this society knows that this action by the Mersyside Skeptics Society highlights the absolute stupidity of the very notion of homeopathy as a legitimate treatment.

I’d like to extend the hand of friendship to the Mersyside Skeptics Society, and lend the Rational Skeptics Society’s approval and support to their endeavour.

GD Star Rating
loading...
GD Star Rating
loading...