Wednesday, 25 February 2015

Skeptocracy 2015

The Rt. Hon. David Tredinnick MP has always been a controversial character in Parliament because of his "alternative beliefs"; he is a champion of homeopathy and chiropractors, and he has recently stated that the use of astrology in healthcare would be of benefit to patients, see: His seat on both the Health Select Committee and the Science and Technology Select Committee has enraged Skeptics and he has become a recurrent hate figure on Skeptic radio shows like The Pod Delusion, for example see: The Huff Po article is very jocular and the comments and Tweets are predictably snide and scathing, but it took me a while to find the magic bullet, somebody possibly calling for Tredinnick's forced deselection because of his views. As coincidence, or synchronicity, would have it, a very similar scandal has broken out in the USA, again concerning an elected government representative and her views on "quackery". Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore is the CEO of a health company and is a supporter of the controversial Simoncini cancer treatment; a procedure not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and is regarded by Skeptics as "snake oil". The problem is that Ms Fiore is also a member of the Nevada Legislature and has presented a bill to the House which if passed would permit Simoncini's treatment to be used in public hospitals and by licensed physicians all over the state of Nevada, see: The response from her critics has been the same as Tredinnick's. Again, will we see that magic bullet?

It's an awkward situation for the Skeppers; they're so sure of themselves about everything. They use phrases like "no evidence!", "comprehensively discredited!" and "a shameful disgrace to science!" but they're talking about professional politicians who have been democratically chosen by the people to represent them in government. If any action is taken against Tredinnick or Ms Fiore then the Skeptics will effectively be saying that democracy doesn't matter and the normal process of government should be overruled because the elected representative is so dangerous, in other words they contradict the Skeptic view of reality, a view that some Skeptics think should be enforced on everybody whether they like it or not. I've not checked all the comments yet and so far I've not seen the magic bullet, yet I might have on the HPANWO Forum.
Skeptic member "Beetzart" posted yesterday: "Look at this fucking idiot (Tredinnick) Ooh, what a woo, get the fuck out of government!".
I responded: "If you want him to 'get the fuck out of government!' then you're going to have to persuade his constituents not to vote for him. Presumably at the moment they're perfectly satisfied with his representation... you can't remove somebody from government just because he's not a Skepper..."
Beetzart replied: "What do you think, Hag? Do you think someone who holds a place in public office should keep their views like this to themselves? Astrology is a crock of crap." (Source:
So does this mean Beetzart is calling for a forced dismissal of an elected representative because of his beliefs, or not? I'm not sure. I'll ask him to clarify. However if he is, he wouldn't be the first. James Randi has objected to nurses being trained in hands-on-healing by saying: "I don't want my tax money spent on that!" But not all taxpayers are Skeptics. Are Skeptics allowed to dictate how the entire exchequer is spent, even though it is meant to be there for the needs of everybody? Skeptics, as I've said before, are extremely bad at introspection; they'll use slogans about "educating the public" and "promoting the scientific method", but never hesitate in breaking out the jackboots when the public listens to them and dares to disagree. One Skeptic I spoke to on the old James Randi Educational Foundation forum was unequivocal and unapologetic: "Government is there to represent people's interests, not their dysfunctions!" I've covered other examples before such as TEDgate, see:, and the attempt to force the privatization of Steiner schools, see: (I've made a HPANWO TV film about both these issues: Some, including Prof. Richard Wiseman, are calling for the "regulation" of Spiritualist mediums, see: Similar incitements to oppression have been yelled before, see: An American doctor and Skeptic, Dr Paul Offit, is poking his nose into the British NHS and advising them to make vaccines compulsory, see: I swear I would be first on the picket line if anybody ever tried to prevent a Skeptic from speaking freely or holding a Skeptic event, yet many Skeptics would refuse to stand up in the same way for me. Skeptics always claim they do believe in freedom and tolerance, but as I've said before, they are very bad at listening, most of all to themselves. Therefore if they can't understand their own temptations of totalitarianism, then we will have to make them aware when they step out of line, in no uncertain terms.


Marcel said...

An insular, self-interested identity group who believe themselves to be in the possession of special knowledge and superior intellect want to control the behaviours of outsiders? Stop the presses!

Of course, in order to get mediumship on the agenda they have to grope around for some purely rhetorical compassion for some purely rhetorical victim. Unfortunately for the 'skeptocracy' their group is primarily of the 'white middle-class male' demographic, so they have to look for their victims elsewhere. That's where they differ from other identity groups: Their victims are also their foes.

Steve Trueblue said...

"Government is there to the represent people's interests, not their dysfunctions!"
That’s typical skeptic rhetoric and reveals their infantile faireytale substitute for understanding situational evidence.
Not so clear, even to most skeptic watchers, is their inability to join evidence dots to form an evidence based opinion.
Truth is the government’s foibles and dysfunctions reflect those of the population.
The dysfunctional population produces the politicians. LOL
It couldn’t be any other way unless politicians came from another planet.
Skeptics as a substitute for their inability to connect dots, can only mouth bombastic mindless slogans, while posing as normal adults.
Like “There is NO Evidence” but they are Evidence Blind, because of their gross mental defect, unable to join dots, often not appreciated, even by many skeptic watchers.
It’s the blindman saying “I see no evidence”
Skeptics can’t join evidence dots, and thus insist everything is Random.
All things are disconnected they loudly insist.
They are really describing their own disability.
Us “normal” people are so good at connecting myriads of evidence dots continuously, in our daily lives, to form a narrative as our life story progresses, that we are BLIND to the fact that skeptics can’t do that, at all.
They can only mouth infantile brash thoughtless fairey tale counterclaims, quite disconnected from our “normal reality”
They can only speak in opposition, in contradiction. A severe mental dysfunction, underestimated by many skeptic watchers.
Though it’s possible to feel quite sorry and pity the skeptics condition, as yet another undiagnosed mental defect group, my feeling is that they are a social menace poisoning others at every utterance.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

The best summary of Skeptics yet, Steve and Marcel :-)