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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

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.

ADDENDUM::Milka yet again

While I have spent a lot of verbiage on Monika Milka of Monika's Entity, in the long run it has been worth it.  Some of the information is repeated but it is fragmented hence the following 2 posts.  It is both organizational (for me) as well as my response to her recent word salad concerning a friends video.  I also want to address possible mis-information on my part and where I think clarification is needed.  It is that point that make this unsuitable for a YT response.

[As a side note, I have to thank Ms. Milka, as she has provided the fodder for getting me out of my writing funk caused by my strokes.  I do say this with all seriousness, combating her illogical ideology has gotten my brain to think like it once use to.]

As I mentioned in a recent posting, Monika's Ghost has been, willingly, sucked into Milka's web.  She recently made this video and low and behold, guess who showed up in the comments.


I'm not going to get into the details of ME's response as Monika's Ghost explores that here.  What is important is her response and specifically my replies.

A bit of tidiness before we begin to clarify a few points,,,
1]  Not once does Ms Milka address the concerns raised by MG with counter "evidence" .  Her rants are usually vitriolic, ad homs, and conspiracy laden diatribes that ignore the issue(s) at hand.  Not only is it evident here but all through her various responses and comments on the web.

Had you not been so vengeful and vitriolic in your response to the SciBabe, you would have never come on to my radar.  You would have remained in homeopathic obscurity.  But being a bit of a science nerd, word got out and I began to follow your antics.  Although not carrying the popularity of a Sherry Tenpenny, Food Babe, or a David Wolfe, watch you I did.

2]  As to whether her criminal case was dismissed or never presented for prosecution I am still attempting to determine.  As both myself and Monika's Ghost have noted, while the issue is important as background to the whole debacle, it is current activities, as a whole, that are pertinent.  Milka seems to ignore that she was held accountable in regards to 14 victims.  So yes, what transpired between 2008-2012 (actually 2005) is very important and relevant to current happenings.

IMO it is a character issue.  You would think when one gets spanked as Milka did, she would have learned from the experience.  I am not talking beliefs or ideology but actions; she fucked up, admit it and go on.  But, herein lays the problem with homeopathy, it is a field rife with conflicting beliefs making it a bane of SBM.  It is a field laden with ridicule, as well it should be.  Homeopathy can not be defended, leaving practitioners dazed and confused.

3] It was 14 individuals who filed civil claims against Milka.  All fourteen won settlement as reported here.

But people cannot be prosecuted for stating a scientifically unproven belief. "It's a little like trying to regulate religion, in a sense," says Adelaide-based lawyer Mal Byrne.

"Part of the difficulty is, how do you regulate something that's so vague?"

Byrne would know. Fourteen of his clients sued South Australian homeopath Monika Milka three years ago for allegedly infecting them with bacteria and permanently scarring them after she treated them with "biomesotherapy". This involved injecting saline solution and other substances under their skin. One client opted for the treatment to remedy arthritic pain. Others did so to boost a "general feeling of wellness". What they got instead were shame and isolation.

"You know, they were embarrassed," says Byrne. "A lot of them had to cover [their scarred skin]." Some clients needed antibiotics for years to eradicate the infection and were afraid to touch their children in case they infected them.

Milka denied the claims in court through her lawyer. She later settled with all 14 out of court but continues to work as a homeopath. In October, she published a claim on her Facebook page that her "Wellness Tonic" rid her late mother of cancer after chemotherapy failed to do so. This, says Byrne, is a "flagrant breach" of both the South Australian Code of Conduct for Unregistered Health Practitioners and laws regarding misleading and deceptive business conduct. (Authorities are now reviewing her Facebook page.)

So how can we determine which alternative health treatment – and practitioner – is safe and which isn't, particularly when some alternative health treatments that sound wacky have solid scientific backing?

4] While there is one report stating it was the solution the was contaminated with the mycobacterial infection,

Milka contends that it was the tools. 

As I stated, it matters not whether tools or solution, something became contaminated, Milka has a "duty of care" and that was not carried forth. 

5]  As to questionable actions, we have the following examples.  First, giving of contrary medical advice.  While not "illegal" in the manner she presents, she is advising people to disregard a licensed medical doctor's advice:

Second, it was reported that Milka was soliciting money (by posting her own bank details on her Facebook page) to further a cure for cancer via homeopathy,

what remains of that posting is this:

See below for further diatribes concerning fundraising efforts concerning cancer research.

https://www.facebook.com/monikasentity/posts/1248703868479169

 

https://www.facebook.com/monikasentity/posts/1249490621733827

These are but a few examples, a gander at Milka's various timelines is very revealing.

With that out of the way, here is my first response,,,

Ms Milka, owner of Monika's Entity.  Your former case is well documented in the SA media through various means. Although the SA gov't didn't pursue their case against you for reasons unknown [to me], you did settle with at least 5 plaintiffs.  Regardless of how your instrumentation became contaminated you, as the sole proprietor are ultimately responsible for any harm done to your clients.  Whether they chose to remain your client is besides the point. (See above for clarification)

Point of clarification that needs to be addressed:
What I should have noted and failed to do so, this area of concern falls under "duty of care"; a point she harps on concerning "allopathic" medicine.  As I  have stated, I am unfamiliar with AU law but here in the US,  proof of "duty of care" is necessary to claim negligence. 

Now being that Ms. Milka claimed registration/accreditation, I first searched for evidence of (former and current) membership in Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency or Australian Homeopathic Association; two organizations I am familiar with.  I would expect that she would follow their guidelines which simply states, "Practitioners have a duty to make the care of patients or clients their first concern and to practise safely and effectively." 

What I did find is this, and this is important, as it does address her contention that she was accredited:

While it does show accreditation, there is no time-stamp as to the time period covered.  In other words, was Ms Milka accredited at the time of the biomesotherapy incidents?  The fact that she is included in the 30th Report Bogus of Unregistered Deregistered Health Practitioners (2009) draws question to that issue as she was (in my  layman's opinion) clearly in violation of the ATMS code of conduct, "ATMS members are accountable for their clinical decision making and have moral and legal obligations for the provision of safe and competent practice."
 
For clarification purpose, the following was sent to ATMS, although I do not expect a reply:

Greetings and thank you for your time,,,
I am currently putting together a series concerning Ms Milka.  During the course of the debate, questions concerning her accreditation has arisen.  While she claims to have been accredited by your organization "until June 2015" could you please clarify length of time this covers and is it contingent on yearly dues being paid?  In other words was she a dues paying, accredited member during the time she faced her legal woes concerning the biomisotherapy debacle (approx. 2008-2012)?

Also can you confirm, is she is still an accredited member of your organization?  The membership ID in question is 26619.

Again I thank you for your time in this matter

Upon further searching, I also found this, which covers 2011-2012:

Remember, the biomesotherapy debacle came to the fore in 2008, with civil settlement in 2012.  Only for one year during her troubles, is there "available" evidence (and I use that term lightly as I am based in the states) that Milka was accredited (besides 2015).  It is that point I would like for Ms. Milka to offer clarification and evidence for.

Sources used:

• http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/stop-order-on-alternative-treatment/story-e6frea83-1111116751032
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3468743/Homeopath-Monika-Milka-Monika-s-Entity-asked-donations-instead-cancer-charities.html
• https://www.facebook.com/destroyedbyscience/photos/ms.c.eJw9zckRgFAIA9COHBL2~;hsTv8r1kRCEWqEbIm0pdeEBCkSNJeQPPInITageiHjBsmIADf1gjg~_kLyQjvbQXzix21mW~_Gl3YC~;mC~;zDpqUTxBrcwJY0~-.bps.a.1630580090518690.1073741830.1619605801616119/1634819910094708/?type=3&theater
• http://immaletyoufinish.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/menacing-monika-milka.html
• https://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/skeptic-news-injected-with-a-poison/
• http://www.hcscc.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HCSCC-Public-Statement-Regarding-Monika-Milka-26Feb2016.pdf [this is the 2016 HCSCC statement concerning Milka]
• http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/bogus-healthcare-providers-named/story-e6freo8c-1225736488739
• https://www.scribd.com/document/45659688/30th-Report-Bogus-Unregistered-Deregistered-HealthPract-1  [Monika's bs starts on page 42 of document]
• https://www.danbuzzard.net/journal/introducing-dangerous-fraud-monika-milka.htm

Contrary to your belief a "boil" is not simple and can become a systemic infection causing death.  As with any treatment, there is risk involved.  With SBM at least that decision is a well informed one based on science and scientific protocol and not some fairy magic that is counter all known laws of chemistry and physics. "We speak of evidence, experimentation, and what the evidence shows. All conclusions are provisional, subject to revision as new evidence comes in."

These were not simple "boils",

Byrne would know. Fourteen of his clients sued South Australian homeopath Monika Milka three years ago for allegedly infecting them with bacteria and permanently scarring them after she treated them with "biomesotherapy". This involved injecting saline solution and other substances under their skin. One client opted for the treatment to remedy arthritic pain. Others did so to boost a "general feeling of wellness". What they got instead were shame and isolation.

"You know, they were embarrassed," says Byrne. "A lot of them had to cover [their scarred skin]." Some clients needed antibiotics for years to eradicate the infection and were afraid to touch their children in case they infected them.

From Losing in the Lucky Country,

Not long after this in June 2008, S.A. Health issued a Mesotherapy Alert. It included reports on six people who had attended Monika’s Entity suffering “multiple symmetrical skin abscesses on their calves, buttocks, thighs, abdomen, shoulders, face and neck”. Today it appears up to 14 people were seriously effected by this madness.

One had developed a notoriously difficult to treat mycobacterial abscess. Translation? Monika was almost certainly injecting her customers with tap water, the most common source of mycobacterium. Either that or sewerage contaminants.

Relegating your belief in homeopathy to some special science and metaphysical mumbo jumbo places it in the same league of religion.  A belief with no evidence.

We live in a world of cause an effect, a world we measure with our five senses.  By claiming that homeopathy "works" in ways that science cannot measure, it automatically becomes an argument of metaphysical woo-woo (or the paranormal if you would like).  It is why I relegate homeopathy as equivalent to religion as one assigns supernatural characteristics to the "remedy".  The issue, these supernatural characteristics of the remedy interact with the physical world (our bodies) but yet the claim is made they work but in mysterious ways.  Science cannot measure the how.

While the discussion this is taken from concerns the existence of God, it highlights quite well the comparative analogy I use.  [Taken from private notes wording altered to fit our discussion.]

If we know of the reaction, and can measure it in some way, then we must also - by default - be able to assess and measure the causative action. If we can't measure what we think is the causative action (i.e., homeopathy), then either our thinking is wrong, or our methods (science) are wrong. Since our methods (science) otherwise lead us to viable, concrete conclusions, then it must be our thinking that is wrong (homeopathy works; its a form of god-of-the-gaps).

Very simply, we are left with this, 

1.)   Supernature (the homeopathic remedy) can have an effect (treatment or cure) on Nature (our bodies), or

2.)   the homeopathic remedy (relying on the supernatural) does not work or exist.

Although not an apparent issue concerning Milka, a point Orac alludes to is important to keep in mind.

Over the years, I’ve often likened non-science-based medical belief systems to religion. It’s not a hard argument to make. Religion involves believing in things that can’t be proven scientifically; indeed, religion makes a virtue out of ignoring the evidence and accepting various beliefs on faith alone. Similarly, alternative medicine frequently tells you that you have to believe in the therapy, dedicate yourself completely to it, in order for it to work. Of course, as I’ve also mentioned before, it is that insistence on belief and total commitment shared by religion and alternative medicine that provides quacks with an “out” when their treatments don’t yield the promised results, their frequent excuse being to blame the patient. He didn’t believe hard enough. In a reverse of The Secret, which states that you can bring good things to yourself by simply wanting it, in alt-med world, it’s all too often implied (or even more than implied) that you bring calamities on yourself through bad diet, bad lifestyle, and bad thoughts. After all, what is the German New Medicine, other than the claim that cancerous tumors are not the disease, but rather a manifestation of buried emotional traumas that cause the “protective” mechanism of a tumor to result?

As to recent concern for your actions,,,

While past disagreements may be resolved, you are still under the watchful eye of HCSCC per a February 2016 statement.  If this order has been rescinded please provide a copy preferable in the same format as the one enclosed.

Touting Black Salve, and providing a recipe for such, as a treatment I believe is a violation; specifically paragraph #3.

Touting lemon water, as a means to alkalize the body when such is not medically or scientifically possible or advisable, is as bogus as they come.

Fibromyalgia of the spine? There is no such beast as MG noted in another video.  But as one who suffers from fibro, I already knew that.

There is no evidence that any currently recommended vaccine causes brain damage or other mental disorders in otherwise healthy children. Severe reactions do occur but are extremely rare.  Vaccine remain a vital tool in humanities fight against disease.

Promoting stem cell tourism?  How goshe.  While the procedure does offer the possibility of treatment, I prefer not to have my quality of life diminished.  Dr Rader is a de-licensed (2014) psychiatrist, specialized in eating disorder.  Not one I would trust injecting me with a unknown substance.

That is just a smattering of the crap you tout.  Don't like being called out for your bullshit, then don't post it.

I will be very blunt, YOU Monika, are not being bullied!!  Scorned yes, bullied no. You have made numerous, and continue to make, posts without mindfulness of your own social (and now mass) media presence, and people made fun, and will continue to mafe fun, of the inherent idiocy of in homeopathy. They then thought for themselves and did their own research  and learned of the impact your business has had on some people.

ADDENDUM::Another loon from down under has gravitated upward

Normally cranks come and go; a dime-a-dozen.  Some have more longevity than others or are just too stubborn to realize that they peddle shit.  Such is the case of one Monika Milka/Claudia Cummings.  After my last update and re-reading the information I have on file as well as new perspective, a few subsequent points became apparent.

1] She is still passing off homeopathy as medicine, it is not.  However you want to slice it, homeopathy does not work and as Dr. David Gorski notes, "This makes as much sense as allowing the sale of batteries that don’t produce electricity." [FYI Gorski also notes, "one excellent review of homeopathic product regulation is reprinted on Quackwatch."]

2]  Milka is a public figure with a public FB profile (Monika's Entity) making her and her beliefs (homeopathy) fair game for critique.  As I have shown in my last entry, Claudia Cummings (whose FB profile is also public) claims to be Monika Milka of Monika's Entity.

For the most part if you are dealing with a "private" individual who has their privacy settings set as public, all content is considered public and shareable. This includes comments to the page. The legal standards of defamation and libel do hold.

"When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." [https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms, see 2.4]

Basically, "Also, lodging a DMCA take-down notice necessitates that the claimant is signing a legal document. If they sign that legal document, knowing that they are making a false claim, then, they are open to prosecution under the Criminal Code Act 1995. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse." (See below for citation)

As I do have friends in AU, refer to the Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968. This blog post lays out the details quite nicely if interested.

I mention this only because of what I have stated before, Milka does not like any criticism and makes veiled legal threats (example here of what she typically spreads) that hold no water.  Regretfully if one, such as Monika's Ghost has discovered, gets caught up in Milka's bullshit it can and is a PITA.  This is partly why I have again taken this up, the more voices the better.

3]  While I am aware of an imposter ME page, it is quite clear as to which page is the original and which is the imposter or Poe page.  As with celebrity figures, a business page is "verified" and that is readily seen when one visits the page.

4]  While her past legal issues are troublesome and appear resolved, it is the issue of a 2016 HCSCC statement that I am concerned with and I am awaiting clarification.

Legalities aside, as I am not one to determine whether Milka is following the law, lets look at some of what she is "sharing".
Up first, vaccines cause brain damage.

This notion is so vague it is difficult but centers around the belief that vaccines are neurotoxins.  The underlying premise, before vaccines autism was unheard of.  For brevity sake, that vagueness will remain.

There is no evidence that any currently recommended vaccine causes brain damage or other mental disorders in otherwise healthy children. Severe reactions do occur but are extremely rare.  (In essence, a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be determined: see for example here and here.)

From the Institute of Medicine, August 2011:

Vaccines offer the promise of protection against a variety of infectious diseases. Despite much media attention and strong opinions from many quarters, vaccines remain one of the greatest tools in the public health arsenal. Certainly, some vaccines result in adverse effects that must be acknowledged. But the latest evidence shows that few adverse effects are caused by the vaccines reviewed in this report.

Again, for the sake of keeping things short and simple, this 2013 study by DeStefano, et al   shows that  increasing exposure to the compounds found in vaccines does not raise the risk of autism spectrum disorders.

As usual with common AV tropes, this issue is much larger than a simple meme.  Something that is lost on an individual such as Milka.  It is not a black and white snapshot, but one with many nuances that ultimately comes out on the side of vaccines.  One must be willing to look at all the evidence, not just the echo chamber.

Although Monika's Ghost is also dealing with this posting as well, I thought I'd throw my two-cents in concerning the whole leaky gut bullshit.  If your gut is permeable, you got big problems - like inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, or Crohn's.



For those that have read my previous writings, I consider leaky gut (as used by modern day woowoodoctors) bullshit and here is why   [Crislip's section on culture specific syndromes is fascinating]

One caveat I will make, research concerning the entire gut biome and its many intricacies, is exceedingly important; I in no way want to present the idea that it is not.  What I am against is crap such as Milka presents; from David Avocado Wolfe no less.

Now I going to do some assuming.  I am too lazy to look into what this documentary is about and as with the gut biome, legitimate research must be done.  Like the leaky gut bullshit, what I am against what is called "stem cell tourism" which is a favorite of the bio-med crowd.  So I read with interest this article by David Gorski, not that this method of treatment would ever be available to myself as I am dirt poor.

What is irritating, Milka's assertion that "this looks amazing,,, someone is not going to like this very much".  Might it be the medical doctors and surgeons who have to try and "fix" the potential messes left by Rader.

Though it takes some time for the movie to reveal this, all of the patients it interviews are clients of a single Tijuana clinic run by William C. Rader, who has been stripped of his American medical license. Merola acknowledges the revocation, painting it as the result of a too-cautious establishment persecuting a medical innovator. But he ignores some of the claims against Rader, and when showing his background as a famous TV medical-expert-for-hire in the '70s and '80s, he doesn't tell us Rader's training was in psychiatry and his specialty was eating disorders. How, one wonders, does this qualify him to experiment with the building blocks of the human organism?

While I can personally understand the enthusiasm behind such treatment, (I would very much like to have the complete use of the right side of my body, the difficulty in speech and cognition fixed)  I would prefer it to be done by someone better qualified than an ex-pat, eating disorder specialist.  The hubris Milka embraces is galling and like Wakefield, who is embraced as a martyr of the AV crowd, we now have another ex doctor, stripped of his license to practice touting a miracle cure.  Milka in her ignorance, refuses to understand the pitfalls of such research and possible treatment.

Given that the traits that make stem cells so desirable as a regenerative treatment, their plasticity and immortality (ability to divide indefinitely), are shared with cancer, scientists doing legitimate stem cell research have always tried to take precautions to stop just this sort of thing from happening in clinical trials. Clearly, “stem cell tourist” clinics, which intentionally operate in countries where the regulatory environment is—shall we say?—less than rigorous are nowhere near as cautious, as they charge tens of thousands of dollars a pop for stem cell treatments that might or might not actually have real stem cells in them.

Sorry but not sorry, the Galileo Gambit just doesn't fly.  [I thought this article, noted by Gorski, interesting as it points out the prevalence of for profit, stem cell clinics in the US.]

The goal of stem cell advocates, including myself, is to find a regulatory sweet spot where science-based, innovative stem cell medicine can advance expeditiously. On the other side we have largely physicians and lawyers along with some patients arguing for drastically-reduced regulation and acceleration of for-profit stem cell interventions to patients, even without concrete data supporting safety or efficacy.

The latter group is a key part of a rapidly-proliferating stem cell clinic industry in the US. It consists of for-profit stem cell clinics that collectively have already conducted stem cell transplants on potentially thousands of patients without federal regulatory approval. These clinics have in effect thrown down the gauntlet to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with their use of non-FDA approved stem cell products on patients.

And finally, there is this,

What can I say that I haven't already stated concerning the acid/alkaline fad.  Simply put, foods can influence our urine pH.  No, foods don’t influence our blood pH (overall body pH).

I honestly wonder if pseudoscience sellers deliberately find pieces of science that they can deliberately twist and take out of context in order to sell their products and ideas; or if they genuinely believe in their own intellectual dishonesty. Here for instance, the fact that the acidic microenvironment caused by cancer cells has been hypothesised to lead to more aggressive invasive behaviour during carcinogenesis (9); is used dishonestly in two ways. Firstly, to lead people to believe that their “acidic” body pH has caused them to develop cancer in the first place, and secondly, to believe that they will be able to create an alkaline environment in their body that will be unfavourable to cancer cells, causing them to grow more slowly or perish selectively, leaving healthy cells untouched.

Leaving aside the fact that results from in vitro experiments cannot just be translated to what occurs in a living organism; most studies on cancer cells are done in a medium with a pH of 7.2-7.4 (10) which is not acidic. The reason that these conditions are used is that this also conveniently happens to be very close to the pH of extracellular fluid (blood plasma, interstitial fluid) (11) experienced within the human body. The human body also conveniently has a number of mechanisms that ensure this pH does not go outside a very strict range (7.35-7.41) – if it does, the consequences are dire, as in, death. A blood pH level of 8.5 would be a very bad thing. Lets be honest- whether or not cancer cells can be killed by an extreme environment is irrelevant if the extreme environment is going to lead to the death of a patient. This is really no different from saying “Hey, I can destroy these cancer cells in this test tube with napalm. Who wants in?”.

You see Monika, it's not you per se, but what you "teach".  You espouse bullshit and pass it out like candy with no critical thinking what-so-ever.  Like Bill Maher you are a contrarian.  You are a spoiled, petulant child!

You distrust authority for authorities sake.  You can not or will not carry on a conversation with a dissenter without descending in to ad homs and name calling; a veiled "fucktard" being your choice word.

As Monika's Ghost has noted in her work, your education is from a now defunked school of dubious quality.  You where suckered and suckered good by the glare of "ancient" wisdom when the root of homeopathy has no basis in reality or modern science.  For homeopathy to work, it would have to bypass all known laws of physics and chemistry.  To say it is beyond those measurements or qualities, you have just relegated your practice to one of religion.

You have been asked time and again for peer reviewed material to back your claims and you have none to offer outside of some homeopathic journal.  That is no better than a Christian or Muslim apologist offering the Bible or Quran as proof of God.  What's worse, at the same time you present "your" supporting evidence, you reject all others and delete then ban them from commenting in the process.

PS.

As I was writing this piece up Milka shared another piece of derp, black salve:

I will  have more on that in another posting.

PSS.  For reference purposes, below is a listing of numerous articles and blog postings related to Monika Milka.

• http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/stop-order-on-alternative-treatment/story-e6frea83-1111116751032
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3468743/Homeopath-Monika-Milka-Monika-s-Entity-asked-donations-instead-cancer-charities.html
• https://www.facebook.com/destroyedbyscience/photos/ms.c.eJw9zckRgFAIA9COHBL2~;hsTv8r1kRCEWqEbIm0pdeEBCkSNJeQPPInITageiHjBsmIADf1gjg~_kLyQjvbQXzix21mW~_Gl3YC~;mC~;zDpqUTxBrcwJY0~-.bps.a.1630580090518690.1073741830.1619605801616119/1634819910094708/?type=3&theater
• http://immaletyoufinish.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/menacing-monika-milka.html
• https://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/skeptic-news-injected-with-a-poison/
• http://www.hcscc.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HCSCC-Public-Statement-Regarding-Monika-Milka-26Feb2016.pdf [this is the 2016 HCSCC statement concerning Milka]
• http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/bogus-healthcare-providers-named/story-e6freo8c-1225736488739
• https://www.scribd.com/document/45659688/30th-Report-Bogus-Unregistered-Deregistered-HealthPract-1  [Monika's bs starts on page 42 of document]
• https://www.danbuzzard.net/journal/introducing-dangerous-fraud-monika-milka.htm