I’m sure that I spend too much time scanning my few trusted Facebook sites, ones I truly like. Anyway there’s the International Medical Council on Vaccination, an avowedly questioning and almost wholly anti-vaccination and informed group, pushing the boundaries of understanding outwards and, hopefully, helping others to question, as well. I contribute and get involved in some discussions. Yesterday I followed an interesting looking posting on their Wall, which was how it all got rather weird!
The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice it was -“Because integrity is worth defending” their strapline. They work to defend people damaged by Big Pharma and so, notably, Vaccine damage. Headlines such as “New doubts raised in the genetic causation of autism” and “African children vaccinated at gunpoint” and “How drug companies get away with murder”. Right on, I thought, this looks interesting, if a bit full on.
Turned out they were a group of investigators come legal representitives working to help all these innocent victims. Reasonable still, though I now wondered if ’twas a bit of a gravy train. Still, I continued to investigate as further headlines also read well:
“More scrutiny for MDs’ kickbacks”, “Pertussis epidemic scam threatens children” and “The golden rice saga unfolds”. All good stuff.
Then another great section where the objectivity of Wikipedia was questioned. This is an obviously sore point for them and I’ve also felt it to be a growing issue. I’ve noticed the infections agenda dominated by the vaccination industry, for example, and how trendy subjects are run by the propagators of the source ideas. Also how editing and counter-editing can be quite ruthless, with the greater weight of input always winning. Objectivity endangered. Academic bullying, indeed.
Then I noticed a site section on Global Warming and, wow, this bit is totally what most would entitle “denialist”, strongly saying that antropogenic activities are not causing climate change. “How very odd”, I thought, thinking there must be some mistake. No, it was the same site and yes they certainly said all that. In fact most of the Wiki critique used climate change articles as examples of bias. (I have to say to some extent I do have some sympathy here. But only some!)
So I sent an email to suggest that they should not be so dogmatic about the issue as it put me off the other stuff they said and “would probably have the same effect on others”.
Oh dear, that was not well received. In fact it was very poorly received and I got an email saying I was being a religious zealot and preaching as of a gosple. It turned out to be a one man show. “Prove to me your minds are open” I had said. Anyway I’ll keep this brief; suffice to say that after two emails he again accused me of “evangelizing” and then blocked my reply with “aquila non capit muscas” – the eagle did not catch the mouse”?
Thus he never got my last email so I’ll reprint it here. Well, you never know, he might just find it one day. This is for you, Clark:
“OK, the climate section of your website appears to me as profoundly one sided whereas I welcome, read and digest all relevant information. I find it perplexing that you as a self defined believer in a God use religious terminology as a criticism. Obviously heavy on the old irony.
“However, when I first wrote I thought I was addressing a group and not an individual, which directed my language. I can far more easily accept a single individual for whatever beliefs he or she expresses. For now, I am very happy that we share views on the many dangers inherent in the operation of the modern medico-industrial complex and wish to correct negative outcomes arising from its operation. I don’t seek division, simply clarification. As a scientist.
But it disturbed me as it seems illogical to on the one hand save the minnows from corporate damage whilst at the same time giving those same corporations carte blanche to decimate our collective environment and not even entertain any questioning of such outcomes. He sends quotations from literature for example the following:
which turned out to be Heston reciting some prose saying Earth is indestructible and life would prosper irrespective of humanity’s own fate – might take a while but life’ll always return with a flourish.
Now call me stupid if you like but please Clarke does that not actually contradict your viewpoint? Me, I’m into us all acting in a responsible manner and attempting to keep ourselves going as part of the living picture and not just part of the fossil layers. Let’s treat the planet with greater respect, boost the Global ecosystems and remain part of this ongoing adventure.