Wednesday, January 09, 2008

The race is on for '2008 Woo-umentary of the Year'!

I know a lot of us are simply distraught over the Golden Globes this year. I can barely work at all, and I havent eaten anything since they were officially canceled a couple days ago. Arnie ripped up another sofa cushion, he was so angry.


Well, all we can hope for is that the writers strike will be resolved soon, and next years movie awards wont be effected, because we have to see who wins for '2008 Woo-umentary of the Year'!

The line up just keeps getting stronger and stronger.

First, there was 'EXPELLED!'-- Bad-boy Ben Stein takes a stand against Big Science, shining a light on their persecution of Creationists!

Then, there was 'Einstein was Wrong'-- Bad-Boy David de Hilster takes a stand against Big Science, shining a light on their persecution of Relativity Deniers!

Now, perfectly in line with my New Years Resolution, we have 'AIDS, Inc.'-- Bad-Boy Gary Null takes a stand against Big Science, shining a light on their persecution of HIV Deniers!

Hmm... already wins my award for 'Most Boring Movie Trailer'... PARADIGM sighting at 1:08...

Yeah all you really need to know about Gary you can find on his website. Its good I ran across him before I met The Other Gary on the 19th-- I didnt know a degree in nutrition made you an expert in:

  • Psychology/Psychiatry
  • Business
  • AIDS
  • Virology
  • Vaccination
  • Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
  • Air purification
  • The dangers of cell phones
  • Healing with magnets
  • Veterinary medicine
  • Arthritis
  • Body lotion
  • Immunology
  • What to do in case of nuclear attack
  • Political Science
  • Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  • Anger management
  • Optometry
Dear god.

Well, -50 Woo-points for missing anti-fluoridation, but +20,000 points for selling CDs and DVDs on how scientists are only in medicine for the money while also SELLING MAGNETIC BRAS FOR 72 DOLLARS.

Everybody start stocking up on popcorn!


monado said...

Your last point is pretty ironic. It would be hard to parody those people.

Dan said...

But... But... ERV? When teh flouridide gits inna da brains, it brings along its little buddy Communism!

At least, that's the way someone explained it to me once.

I think we should whip up a mockumentary about gravity deniers. That would be fun.

Jorgon Gorgon said...

I was really impressed with the mention of the "underworld physics conferences" and the "dark side of physics" on the EWW site...Far out: I want to go to some conferences like that! What am I missing out on?

Bob O'Hara said...

Ben Goldacre has been having a crusade against nutritionists (mainly in the UK). I think Gillian McKeith is still his favourite, for when she claimed that a seed contains everything that's needed for a plant's growth.


Fred Ross said...

I can kind of understand the creationists (early conditioning, yadda yadda), and even the HIV deniers (recently emerged consensus, comparatively, still a few big names among the scientists who disagree, despite the fact that those guys are crackpots based on evidence unrelated to HIV). But how in blazes does someone arrive at being a relativity denier? There aren't even important public policy decisions implicated. It's like being a fluid mechanics denier.

Israel Barrantes said...

I cannot believe that you haven't said anything yet about Huckabee, who supports creationism (and what kind of town is Iowa??)

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

Magnetic bras? Fantastic. My wife has been looking for a place to keep her keys.

Tyler DiPietro said...

"But how in blazes does someone arrive at being a relativity denier?"

My guess is that it's usually the desire to be iconoclastic. Crankery has always been driven to large degree by narcissism, and the ability to say that one of the greatest figures of 20th. century physics was "wrong" is a great way to feel superior to everyone who seems to hold him in such high regard.

Joe said...

Neat! When do we get a picture of "for research purposes only" over your magnetic bra?

Blake Stacey said...

How do people end up being relativity deniers? In addition to echoing what Tyler DiPietro said, I'll add that anti-Semitism helps. It's not uncommon to find a crank saying that Einstein was wrong, and if he got anything right, it's because he stole it from Lorentz or Poincaré.

Ignorance of mathematics — not just specific topics, but the whole style of mathematical reasoning — can also be a contributing factor.

Gary said...

WAYYY OT, BUT, I haz nominated You for a Creo Book at PZ's blog. I don't mean to brag, BUT I did such a damn good job telling anout your skills and abilities, that if you do NOT want the book, you'd better go over there, cuz otherwise it is yours...

Chris Noble said...

It's not uncommon to find a crank saying that Einstein was wrong, and if he got anything right, it's because he stole it from Lorentz or Poincaré.

You've got it all wrong. He stole it all from his wife!

I came across a combined realtivity/HIV denier on usenet groups a few years ago.

The common pattern was a) knowledge limited to that obtained from popular science books b) readiness to conclude that the vast majority of scientists are all stupid, ignorant, dogmatic sheeple.

Is their a category in DSM-IV for this mental disorder?

Olorin said...

Hold the presses!! There's a new woo on the block. Here are some snippets from comments that have been appearing on evolution/ID-related blogs in the past few days:

"For the discerning, there is a new discipline on the scene: physical science, the old science of cause and effect.... The Quest for Right, a new 7-book series created for the public high schools, tackles the stalwart of obstructionism known as quantum mechanics.... Several hundreds of copies are scheduled to be shipped to school board superientendents and members througout the South on Feb., 1, 2008..... Visit the official website for more information:" [Mistakes are his, not mine]

Although he touts quantum mechanics specifically, but evilution seems to be C. David Parsons major target. I'd estimate his Crank Science rating at 6.5 (of a possible 7).

Reynold said...

Speaking of parodies and woo: Here's a little something from Answers in Genesis

Under the heading of the "article" entitled: Adaptive Mutation and the E. coli ebg Operon

Hall’s work needs critical evaluation. Mutations in the ebg system are clearly not an example of evolution but mutation and natural selection allowing for adaptation to the environment. A major implication of this research is an understanding that adaptive mutation makes “limited” changes that severely restrict its use as a mechanism for evolution.

Doesn't that last sentence seem like some sort of dodge to you, given the admission that they just made?

Adaptive mutations can readily fit within a creation model where adaptive mechanisms are a designed feature of bacteria. Further understanding of these mutations in the ebg operon may help the development of a creation model for adaptation of bacterial populations in response to the adverse environmental conditions in a post-Fall, post-Flood world.
Of course, now they're busy trying to take credit for something that evolutionary theory has predicted...

Don't worry, Abbie. They've got another little article in there that talks about, you guessed it:
Endogenous Retroviruses: Remnants of Germline Infection or Created in the Cell? Pretty formidable, especially considering where the author studies:
Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Watertown, Wisconsin

Anyone from a University that's so widely known for it's work in biology obviously must know what the they're talking about, eh?

First found on Fundies Say the Darndest Things

Reynold said...

Just realized something: Wouldn't further mutations and such stuff later on bring about more room for "adaptation to the environment" in the future?

I imagine then that this sentence from that article I linked to previously really is just a dodge.

A major implication of this research is an understanding that adaptive mutation makes “limited” changes that severely restrict its use as a mechanism for evolution.

Hey, it's been years since I've been in biology, ok?

*at least I can make links in the damned blog now!*

nyscof said...

Thank you for bringing Gary Null's important video to my attention. I found the trailer very interesting. He's right about fluoridation, also

“Second Thoughts about Fluoride,” reports Scientific American

New York - January 2, 2008 -- “Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland,” reports Scientific American editors (January 2008). “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift,” writes author Dan Fagin.

“Fluoride, the most consumed drug in the USA, is deliberately added to 2/3 of public water supplies theoretically to reduce tooth decay, but with no scientifically-valid evidence proving safety or effectiveness,” says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

Fagin, award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, writes, “There is no universally accepted optimal level for daily intake of fluoride.” Some researchers even wonder whether the 1 mg/L added into drinking water is too much, reports Fagin.

After 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, a National Research Council (NRC) committee “concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid – the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism,” reports Fagin.

Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly, “The thyroid changes do worry me.”

Fluoride in foods, beverages, medicines and dental products can result in fluoride over-consumption, visible in young children as dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. We can’t normally see fluoride’s effects to the rest of the body.

Reports Fagin, “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”

“(E)pidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin. Levy will study fluoride’s effects on their bones.

Over 1200 professionals urge Congress to cease water fluoridation and conduct Congressional hearings because scientific evidence indicates fluoridation is ineffective and has serious health risks. Support them; write your representative here:

(or http://www.FluorideAction.Net )

“(G)enetic, environmental and even cultural factors appear to leave some people much more susceptible to the effects of fluoride,” writes Fagin

“What the [NRC] committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride … for too long… and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says, “ In the scientific community, people tend to think that its settled… But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began, In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”

Fluoridation 101


NYSCOF News Releases:

Torbjörn Larsson said...

Thank you for bringing Gary Null's important video to my attention.

So the context of the post and that particular sentence flew you by, eh? Woo-t!

nyscof said...

Actually, your sarcasm was not lost on me as almost everyone is sarcastic to those opposed to fluoridation. (YAWN)

I was sticking up for Gary Null who is right about fluoridation.

Fluoridation is a failed experiment. Instead of reducing tooth decay, it has increased dramatically fluoride overdose symptoms, especially dental fluorosis, or discolored teeth, which now afflicts up to 51% of US school children.

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. No American is, or ever, was fluoride deficient.

Hydrofluosilicic acid, the fluoride chemical used, is a waste product of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and is allowed to contain trace amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury, when it reaches your glass of water.

Now that too many Americans are dentist-deficient, organized dentistry is diverting your attention away from the real problem by focusing on fluoridation. Some people actually fall for that unscientific line of baloney.

Torbjörn Larsson said...

Fluoridation is a failed experiment.

I'm not sure sarcasm is the right description. Amazement, rather.

Flouridation works fine where I live [Sweden], with associated decrease in caries and few if any reported side effects.

I managed to find some english references that the authorities in EU/Sweden use:

An increased intake of fluoride is the foremost reason for the decrease in the spread of caries which has been noted in most western societies in the past 30 years [12-15]. Brushing the teeth with fluoride toothpaste in most likely the most effective means of adding fluoride as daily use of fluoride toothpaste reduces the onset of caries by up to 50% [15[. In areas with low-fluoride drinking water, such as Stockholm, fluoridation has been shown to be an effective method of preventing caries. This method, however, has never been tested on a larger scale in Sweden. Fluoride tablets and rinses are used by dentists in selected high-risk groups [11]. [My emphasis.]

I mention this only to show others that you are clearly spouting woo - it isn't much to argue about since the science is considered sound over a period of several decades. Another tell tale is your claim about that distributed water contains trace elements of metals, as it must unless it is freshly distilled.

nyscof said...

"Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000).

(See statement by Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the Nobel Laureate in Medicine, who helped lead the campaign to prevent fluoridation in Sweden in the late 1970s.)

Sweden's Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

ERV said...


+50 points to the drive-by Woo-er! I thought that Nulls water purifier INCLUDED fluoride, which is why I detracted 50,000 points from his woo-er score.


Torbjörn Larsson said...

Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden

AFAIK it is completely true that the new EU regulation put a limit on natural fluore content in drinking water, and possibly also prohibited fluoridation. As my previous reference showed, fluoridation was never used in large scale in Sweden - it is rather wasteful and expensive to include a mineral that can be added directly at the needed spot.

Now, where is the data that contradicts my previous references, i.e. that fluoridation, whatever the fluor carrier, is an effective and widely used (in dental paste et cetera) method of preventing caries? Note that your reference says that there is no such new data.

C. David Parsons said...


The following dissertation on Darwin is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a series of seven books on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect.

On the outset, the reader should be aware that Darwin was a self-proclaimed agnostic; he did not deny the possibility that God exists but believed it was beyond one's mental ability to decide if there is, indeed, any divine force. Darwin, in response to an invitation to become a Patron of the Cat Show (September 18, 1872), lightheartedly referred to himself and cronies as "atheistical cats." By definition, an atheist either does not believe in, or denies the existence of God. Regardless of the profile, agnostics and atheists alike believe that all questions concerning origins, being, and the like may be explained fully by material phenomena and logic; scientists have since added a third dimension, the orderly application of mathematics, called electronic interpretation—read the matter in detail in Volume 1.

A cultural note: a marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one's mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned, "For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [men who 'hold the truth in unrighteousness'] are without excuse" (Romans 1:20-22). The things God created are aptly referred to as “the glory of God.”

In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God. There are, however, men who do "not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty: "Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21, 22).

In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient—willful, "done on purpose; deliberate." The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified; please read on.

Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity—objectively, "uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas." In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he "could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.

In order to access an online, audible Bible, and to read the biblical verses in context, go here:
You may wish to bookmark the site. RealPlayer is required to listen to the Audio Bible.

Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the "constant inculcation" (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God" during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an "agnostic." The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.

The Old Testament did not escape Darwin's inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that "the manifestly false history of the earth....was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian." Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale. As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the "volumne (sic) on the origin of species...light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history," meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God—there is no God.

You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

Visit the official website for additional information:

Purchase the book at one of these fine stores:,,,,,, and many others. Hardback. In stock.