Live Holistically is a multi-author site.
This post was written by: Carol Webb
Oh Exalted Ones!
“Once scientists were exalted” but now “Alternatives are attacking science” says Richard Dawkins, Oxford University Professor and a very frightened man.
Tonight on U.K. television’s Channel 4, Dawkins was given another hour to expound his views and massage his ego, and also the egos of his followers, who all seek to manipulate our thinking.
I can only draw on a quotation from Adolf Hitler, “The greater the lie, the greater the chance it will be believed,” because he has learned this lesson well, the people are believing him in droves. I therefore refute his assertions from the wisdom of my own experiences, and also the years of study that I have felt necessary to reach any platform which might be called expertise in holistic therapies.
Truth and Lies
There must always be a little truth in every lie to make it seem credible, and he was able to find that in the practitioners that offer their services in a small English town called Glastonbury. This centre of power is a gathering point for those walking an esoteric path, and those who no doubt believe themselves to be spiritual. Their credibility, however, is stretched beyond breaking point on looking too deeply into their practices. That said, I do believe, that if comfort is sought and found in even the most unlikely of therapies, then that is fine by me.
Dawkins obviously doesn’t feel at all concerned that he is using the same tactics employed by bullies the world over to batter their subjects into submission.
Bullying Tactics
They do this by persuading their victim that any opinion held by them is useless, until their confidence is eroded to the point where they haven’t the mental strength to leave a bad situation. He is repeating very loudly and very often that, if you don’t have me then you have nothing. It is controlling, management of fear tactics, and it feels like he’s stamping his foot, because just maybe, a few people are thinking differently.
Under the guise of searching for, “The Truth”, Crystal Healing, Kinesiology, Angels, ‘Faith Healing’ (whatever that is) and Homeopathy are ridiculed because they aren’t clinically tried and tested. To add insult to injury he quotes the poor uptake of MMR vaccine as an example of the public’s stupidity. We must realize, he says, that this will lead to an epidemic of a harmful childhood disease which can cause deafness and blindness. Tell that to the parents who are struggling with autistic children.
Three cheers for the MMR Vaccine
Here is an example of the shred of truth on which he hangs his argument. Of course measles vaccine is a good idea, no-one doubts it, but 3 vaccines in one, all preserved in poisonous mercury, is not a good idea, and never has been. He then audaciously quotes the clinical trials which have proven it harmless. Would he be talking about the trials held by the drug companies who seek to make millions from the use of these vaccines? I wonder that this man sleeps at night, he cannot truly believe that we live, “In a golden age of safe tested medicine.”(quote), and that the people who practice alternatives, “Are of no value.”(quote)
He worries that the public are wasting their money on a National Health Service Homeopathic Hospital, and goes on to demonstrate that Homeopathy can have no value, as even the sea wouldn’t be big enough to prepare a 30C remedy, because 1 molecule of tincture couldn’t possibly spread itself through this much water. He neither understood or bothered to learn and explain the principles of succussion.
The teachings of Professor Masaru Emoto must be valueless then, or does he not class this learned man as his peer?
I’ll close this article with another gem from the teachings of Richard Dawkins Oxford Professor:
“Always remain open minded, but not so open minded that your brain falls out.”
Is this an objective, academic statement for a learned man to make?
A selection of books that will help you in your search for Alternative ways of being.
9 comments ↓
“Tell that to the parents who are struggling with autistic children.”
But there is no evidence whatsoever that these vaccines cause autism.
“Of course measles vaccine is a good idea, no-one doubts it, but 3 vaccines in one, all preserved in poisonous mercury,”
Thermisol mercury was already eliminated from vaccines years ago now… and autism rates were not affected. By what mechanism are you claiming that mercury that doesn’t even exist in the things you claim it does can poison anyone?
Hi Plunge,
Yes, we are constantly reassured by many trials that mercury does no harm to our children.
I just checked our NHS vaccine website, and unfortunately mercury is still being used in vaccines. There are 2 kinds: methyl and ethyl, the methyl is in the process of being phased out but the ethyl is still considered to be safe.
My point is: if a parent feels that they don’t want to risk their child’s health, in any way, then they are ‘right’, and need to be given choices.
No-one feels good about having their point of view discounted, and that is what Richard Dawkins is seeking to do.
He has the right to express his opinion, as we all do where free speech still exists, but he hasn’t the right to bully by using his high media profile.
There are 2 kinds: methyl and ethyl, the methyl is in the process of being phased out but the ethyl is still considered to be safe.
This is incorrect.
Thimerosal (the mercury-based preservative that used to be in childhood vaccines) breaks down into ethyl mercury. At the concentrations used, ethyl mercury is safe. (*nothing* is safe at all concentrations - not even water).
There has never been methyl mercury in vaccines. Methyl mercury is much more toxic, and is found in things like tuna (in fact, there is more methyl mercury in a tuna sandwich than there is ethyl mercury in all your childhood vaccines).
There is now no longer any thimerosal in childhood vaccines (ethyl mercury).
He has the right to express his opinion, as we all do where free speech still exists
It’s true, one does have the right to be incorrect. Dawkins is merely pointing out that we needn’t respect a viewpoint that is incorrect.
Hi Factician (what a shame you don’t give your name)
I’m going to have to send you to a very long URL. I checked this before I wrote anything, and I have just checked it again to make sure that I was reading correctly.
http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk?news/newsitem.ohp?id=39
where you can read what I just read.
You still don’t take my point though: If you put 2 experts in a room together, I guarantee that they won’t agree, therefore I believe that in this instance, the parent is ‘always’ right and needs to be given a choice.
I think you must agree, that having your opinion discounted hurts, and rather than risk the possibility of an epidemic of harmful measles, single vaccines need to be available.
It is ‘only’ the choice of the parent, as it is the parent that must live with the consequences. Lack of choice is becoming a by-word for this society and needs to be redressed.
First, your link. It does not say what you think it says. “Ethylmercury is present in some vaccines in a compound called thiomersal…There is no thiomersal in MMR.” and “Claims of neurological damage have been based on toxicity from methyl mercury, not present in thiomersal”. Methyl mercury has never been used in vaccines.
They don’t say anywhere in there that ethyl mercury is still being added to childhood vaccines. They say it is still in some vaccines, but not ones routinely given to children.
Second, methyl mercury has never been in vaccines. People have disingenuously tried to compare ethyl and methyl mercury when discussing vaccines with the public. This is as useful and comparing toxicity of dihydrogen monoxide (water) and dihydrogen dioxide (hydrogen peroxide) and trihydrogen dioxide (hydronium acid). They’re rather different, I hope you’ll agree…
Secondly:
*I believe that only purple child seats protect children who are in car crashes. Do you respect my opinion? Should we respect my opinion, and legislate that purple car seats be made available to the public?
*I also believe that the MMR vaccine is completely ineffective unless given as a dose mixed with the Hepatitis B vaccine and the chicken pox vaccine and served with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich extract. Should we make a mixed version of this available in deference to my beliefs?
Dawkins doesn’t suggest that we disrepect people. But he does suggest that opinions that are incorrect needn’t be coddled. I can respect you as a person, and not respect individual beliefs that you have. Can you separate these things?
Finally, I write with a pseudonym. Kinda like Jonathan Swift. I don’t like getting hate mail at my academic workplace (yep, it happens. alot.). But tell you what, if I get famous, I’ll release my name in my will.
*Note: No doubt you’ve figured this out, but I don’t actually believe these things, but I’m trying to make a point.
Well factician, for some reason, you really want me to agree with you that R.D.is right. I’m not going to do that. You are determined to undermine parental choice, and anything that I say will fall on deaf ears. It’s also plain that we are seeing different things in the same document. This is what I see….
quote… Manufacturers are actively developing research programmes to eliminate, substitute or reduce thiomersal in vaccines, following the European recommendations. This may take time because manufacturers are required to ensure that the replacement or elimination of thiomersal does not affect the safety, quality and efficacy of the final vaccine….end quote
Now, if as you say, they have never been used in MMR why would they be working to eliminate them?
To use your choice of argument.
If you wish to believe that the purple child seat will provide more protection for your child than a red one, then you are right. You will purchase a purple one, and you will be content in your mind that your child is protected. And because of your belief system, the child will be protected.
The peanut and jam sandwich is a novel idea, but again this would be up to the parent. However, I have found that when parents are presented with intelligent choices, they are able to make an intelligent decision. I say this as a parent and grandparent.
I won’t bore you with the facts about thoughts and energy, you can argue with Einstein about that, as I’ve no doubt that you will use lack of evidence as your argument.
You are of course correct with your chemicals, but then that is what you do, and I wouldn’t expect anything less.
However, perhaps because of my imperfect understanding, Mercury is Mercury is Mercury, and best left in the laboratory, not added to a child’s body or mouth, ever, in whatever form that may take.
Now, if as you say, they have never been used in MMR why would they be working to eliminate them?
I said methyl mercury has never been used in vaccines. Thimerosal and methyl mercury are very different (see above).
Thimerosal is still used in many vaccines, but is no longer in any *childhood* vaccines. It used to be in childhood vaccines, but is no longer.
However, perhaps because of my imperfect understanding, Mercury is Mercury is Mercury, and best left in the laboratory, not added to a child’s body or mouth, ever, in whatever form that may take.
Hmmmm… Chlorine is chlorine is chlorine. I don’t want my son inhaling chlorine gas for example. Or drinking bleach. But wait! Table salt is *absolutely required* for life. Sodium chloride (half chlorine) is table salt. Looks like I may need to rethink that…
You are determined to undermine parental choice
I think we agree more than we disagree. For example, I think you would agree that you and I shouldn’t interfere with a parent who wishes to discpline their child if we think that they are grounding him/her for too long. However, I bet we would agree that we should intervene in the case where a parent chooses to physically abuse their child. But what about the middle ground? What happens when a parent’s choice puts their child at risk for developing infectious disease? What happens when a parent’s choice with *their* child puts *my* child at risk? That is a grey area that I have troubles with. I don’t think it’s as simple as we’d like it to be.
I tend to think that a parent shouldn’t be allowed to put their child at risk. You tend to think they should. (And I will agree that your position on that is valid, even if I disagree with it). However, do you think that someone else should be allowed to make choices (vaccination) that will put *my* child at risk?
I’ve enjoyed my time here. Best of luck!
This puts a good case for concern about MMR. It is another nail in the coffin of freedom of choice and an example of the lack of duty of care by a government whose agenda is all about control. Do we have a voice?
Hi Richard,
It’s good that you recognise that our freedom of choice is being taken away from us by faceless experts that believe that they have all the answers.
We need voices that will stand up for those freedoms, not those that want to trot out establishment rhetoric which doesn’t have a good track record for unbiased truth.
Leave a Comment