Monday, July 18, 2016

And Again,,,

,,,the line separating science and religion is not a false one. That is ultimately the actual, central source of the conflict: how are you going to figure out how the world works, from inquiry into natural causes, or from metaphysics, superstition, and evidence-free revelation? That is a significant piece, even the central piece, of this long-running argument in our culture.
PZ Meyers, "If you’ve been wondering what Sean B. Carroll thinks of Expelled…"  April 30, 2008

As I mentioned prior, this is part-2 of a organizational type posting, as well as a continued response to Monika Milka of Monika's Entity.  While Ms. Milka is based in AU and I in the states, her influence is global thanks to the inter-web, hence my interest in her antics.  It takes a special kind of person to get under my skin, as she has, to cause me to expend the amount of verbiage I have on one specific, inter-related topic.
While Milka's response was aimed at Monika's Ghost, the creator of said video,.  And as MG and I are FB acquainted (thanks to ME), I took it upon myself to respond.  That was the previous post.  While no subsequent response from Milka has occurred, I decided to dive in a bit deeper, just 'cuz I can.  In all honesty, I had hoped she would respond, as I think the concerns are legitimate and should be answered.  (Not that I would expect anything coherent.)

Based on her sudden silence of late, and lack of winges on her FB, I do wonder if HCSCC (or other relevant AU governmental agencies) are watching and she is aware.  Although, based on minimal exploration she does have a life, where as blogging is my life though I do not get paid.

What I really wanted is to demonstrate, science (in this case) has to support your claims (her won-ton posting of articles).  Science is not just a "thing" but a method as well.

The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.

Science is also a consensus, not one man (or woman) raising a Galilean effort against "the man".
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change—faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative. And there’s so much talk about the trend these days—in books, articles, and academic conferences—that science doubt itself has become a pop-culture meme. In the recent movie Interstellar, set in a futuristic, downtrodden America where NASA has been forced into hiding, school textbooks say the Apollo moon landings were faked.

In a sense all this is not surprising. Our lives are permeated by science and technology as never before. For many of us this new world is wondrous, comfortable, and rich in rewards—but also more complicated and sometimes unnerving. We now face risks we can’t easily analyze.
It's this attitude Milka has, everyone is out to get her.  (While I would have much preferred the statement in Milka's "long description" this will have to do.  I think you will get my drift.)

As I have noted previous, this statement holds no legal bearing.  Monika's Ghost also discusses this point.

As well as noting this (from the long description),
(If it isn't apparent, I use the term "science" loosely in regards to homeopathy.  As there are many branches of science, homeopathy attempts to encompass many.)

Below is my second response, and keep in mind there is some repetition in order to attempt to get an answer and avoid a Gish-Gallop by Milka.

As MG mentioned the notion of "burden of proof", I thought I would take my initial comment a bit further and explain what I find troublesome.

Ms. Milka, as you being the owner of Monika's Entity, I am perplexed by your online presence.  While well aware of your previous antics in relation to the SciBabe, one would think that incident would be a learning experience and motivation to produce hard core scientific evidence to support your contention that homeopathy works. 

Yet again you have failed to do so.  You have brought nothing to the table to counter the above information or my initial comment.

While the prior legal preceding appear to be completed, there is the matter of the February 2016 HCSCC notice.  While I do not have the expertise in AU law to address the legal implications of said statement, you failed to address my question:

Are you or are you not still under the watchful of the HCSCC? 

If you are not under the HCSCC notice, please provide documentation so that such can be noted and corrected.  Failure to address this question will be taken as admission (on your part) that the statement is true and correct.

In regard to past legal issues and associated minutiae,,,

1]  Are you denying that lawyer Mal Byrne, of the Tindall Gask Bentley law firm, in August 2011 said that 5 victims of your biomesotherapy procedure had claims settled with nine claims pending?  While not criminally liable, you where held to be liable from a civil standpoint.

As I have stated, regardless of how your instrumentation or solution became contaminated; you, as the sole proprietor of Monika's Entity are ultimately responsible for any harm done to your clients.

Addressed in the previous post as it was 14 individuals that did eventually settle with Ms Milka.

2] Are you registered, or were you ever registered, with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency or Australian Homeopathic Association?

If so can you please provide clearly readable, photographic documentation so that concern can be corrected.  Again failure to provide the above documentation, in a manner that Joan Blow down the street can read it, will be assumed to be admission that you are not registered nor were you ever registered.

As with MG, I would be first in line to make corrections but you have offered no evidence other than opinion and innuendo in support of your contention.

Addressed in previous post as Ms. Milka was accredited via ATMS.  There are 2 photos she previously provided on FB showing her "paperwork" for the years 2011-2012 and "through June 2015".

I will amend my question, as I did in the previous post:  Were you accredited on or about 2005-2010?  Are you still accredited?

While some may be interested in your past behavior, I am not.  Although your attempts to floof it away as if nothing, is disturbing.  I and many others are interested in your current actions.  The dissemination of highly questionable and sometimes out right fraudulent claims.

While you may not be the originator of said claims, your sometimes acerbic commentary adds a claim of legitimacy and agreement to such thereby making each post uniquely yours.  Here's but a few recent examples.

Black Salve 
While I will be dealing with this article in a future posting, the sentiment behind your comments as well as the article is big pHARMA [while not case specific, offers a good look at the realities] and pHARMa shill gambits. 

One thing of note, also mentioned by MG in her video:

Lemon water
You state in your commentary, "Hot lemon drinks several times a day, will help alkalize the body, which also rids disease. No disease can live in an alkalized body."

First, the acid/alkaline theory of disease is bunkum,,,

"Dietary modification cannot change the acidity of any part of your body except your urine. Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow range. Anything that changed acidity in your body would make you very sick and could even kill you."
Systematic review of the association between dietary acid load, alkaline water and cancer (2016)
Despite the promotion of the alkaline diet and alkaline water by the media and salespeople, there is almost no actual research to either support or disprove these ideas. This systematic review of the literature revealed a lack of evidence for or against diet acid load and/or alkaline water for the initiation or treatment of cancer. Promotion of alkaline diet and alkaline water to the public for cancer prevention or treatment is not justified.
Counseling Patients on Cancer Diets: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Clinical Practice (2014)
Results: We evaluated the following diets: raw vegetables and fruits, alkaline diet, macrobiotics, Gerson's regime, Budwig's and low carbohydrate or ketogenic diet. We did not find clinical evidence supporting any of the diets. Furthermore, case reports and pre-clinical data point to the potential harm of some of these diets.
Second, lemons are acidic, how they would alkalinize is a mystery as all food intake is acidic in the stomach, alkaline in the intestines.
Let’s start here: lemons are acidic. Why are they acidic? They contain citric acid, about 5% by weight. Citric acid has the chemical formula C6H8O7, and the catchy systematic name of 2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid. If you look at the molecule you can see why it’s an acid. See those OH’s that are sitting next to =O’s? Those are acid groups. There are three of them. This is most definitely an acid.
Third, it’s not the acidic environment that causes the cancer; it’s the cancer that causes the acidic environment.

For a more in-depth discussion of this point, go read my synopsis [of the acid-alkaline bullshit]; as this response [has] already become verbose.

Fibromyalgia of the spine?
"Basically you have to go to the cause, which in many cases is 'Leaky Gut',,,"  As I have stated before, "if your gut is permeable, you got big problems - like inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, or Crohn's." 

Leaky gut syndrome,
,,,is described by proponents as a condition in which the intestinal lining becomes irritated and porous so that unwanted food particles, "toxins," bacteria, parasites, and "Candida" enter the bloodstream and result in "a weakened immune system, digestive disorders, and eventually chronic and autoimmune disease." Treatment of this alleged condition can include dietary changes (such as not eating protein and starch at the same meal); "cleansing" with herbal products; "reestablishing good balance" of intestinal bacteria; and supplement concoctions claimed to strengthen and repair the intestinal lining. Note: Some medical scientists use the term "leaky gut" for problems associated with abnormal intestinal permeabilty, but "leaky gut syndrome" is not one of them.
In support of my contention, Mark Crislip, makes this very pertinent point
Judging from PubMed, if you are going to rely on reality and science as your basis for the diagnosis for leaky gut syndrome, it would be more accurate to say that because of an almost complete lack of supporting basic science and few therapeutic clinical trials showing no effect, virtually no physician who has an understanding of the gastrointestinal physiology gives the disease credence.
According to the NHS,
There is little evidence to support this theory, and no evidence that so-called 'treatments' for 'leaky gut syndrome', such as nutritional supplements and a gluten-free diet, have any beneficial effect for most of the conditions they are claimed to help.

While it is true that certain factors can make the bowel more permeable, this probably does not lead to anything more than temporary mild inflammation of an area of the bowel.

Why we should be sceptical about 'leaky gut syndrome'

Exponents of 'leaky gut syndrome' – largely nutritionists and practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine – believe the bowel lining can become irritated and 'leaky' as the result of a much wider range of factors, including an overgrowth of yeast or bacteria in the bowel, a poor diet and the overuse of antibiotics.
And finally,
Intestinal structures are complex and dynamic, varying between individuals and stimuli. Importantly, the lining acts as a mechanism of defence  for the immune system, with leaky gut often a manifestation of autoimmune disease. However in healthy individuals, human and animal studies conclude that changes in intestinal permeability are insufficient in instigating disease. [Odenwald MA, Turner JR. Intestinal permeability defects: is it time to treat? Clin Gastroenterol H. 2013;11:1075-1083] Research does not support a syndrome or attribute the aforementioned symptoms to a leaky gut. Currently, the primary goal of medical treatments is to treat the underlying disorder.
At present, intestinal permeability as a syndrome rather than a mechanism of disease is not medically recognised or understood. Practitioners should avoid endorsing LGS without significant evidence-based research supporting the diagnosis. It is simply encouraging expensive, potentially unnecessary supplements and dietary regimes. Most importantly, delaying and disguising the presence of chronic disease puts individuals at risk of life-threatening consequences.
This entire topic is a mass as confusion delving into GFCF diets, paleo BS, and "gluten insensitivity".  That does not mean that quality research is not occurring.

So you see Ms. Milka, that is what the "burden of proof" places on an individual.  A means to support a claim or assertion with evidence.  Not once in your response did you address my claims or those of  MG's.  Instead you trotted out your worn excuses of innocence, ignoring the fact that you were liable in a civil court for damages caused.

While your denial of authority is frightening, your lack of understanding of science is dangerous.

While I continue to ponder what to post about next, I am reminded of a recent conversation as to why reporting this kind of stuff is important.  In the grand scheme of things, I'm a minor no-body.  I am not of the ranks of someone like Kevin Folta, Kavin Sanepathy, or the SciBabe (too many inspirations to list).  I do not have the education or training to be such and that is fine by me.  I have a little bitty niche and that is ok.

But, something a highly regarded friend tries to drill into my head regarding online debating. (I have modified it over time for my purposes.)
Always remember, it is the audience you are targeting, not your adversary. You are never going to win over those that truly believe, it is the true fence sitters "we" are after; those that have a doubt. That is were solid evidence and support for your claims becomes apparent.

Where your adversary may use ad hom and other fallacies to argue their point. The ability to support your claim is important, it is what the audience sees. It gives the audience something to grasp and hold onto.

The individual battles while important do not win the war. Taken together they in time lead to a shifting tide.  That's what we have to remember in our war against the antis, we have to educate every day.

No comments:

Post a Comment