Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Science Bowel Movements Wants Your Money. Just Trust them…it Isn’t a Scam.

Another post, you say? Two in a week? What is going on here?

Once again, I find myself sufficiently amused by someone’s blatant hypocrisy that I just have to say something about it. You know me…I can’t keep silent in the face of such shameless duplicity.

Who, do you ask, is responsible for this chuckle-worthy sanctimony?

Do you really need to ask?

David Gorski wants us to join his organization of elitist science wannabes:

“The reason this new organization, the Society for Science-Based Medicine, is so needed is because, quite frankly, in the skeptical movement SBM is but one area of many areas of concern, and, in my estimation, one that doesn’t receive attention proportional to the real societal damage done by quackery. That has changed a bit (this year’s TAM featured two talks on Stanislaw Burzynski, and the skeptical movement has shown a gratifying movement towards combatting the antivaccine movement over the last few years), but, even so, I don’t think I exaggerate too much when I say that, even now, SBM tends not to be as prominent a concern in organized skepticism as other brands of pseudoscience and unreason, in particular creationism, religion, and the paranormal.”

So, the main purpose of this little society is so that David can feel important, pretending that what his little elitist club is doing actually matters. That what they are doing is making a difference. A laudable goal, to be sure, if it wasn’t so laughable.

“A new organization is needed to counter unreason and pseudoscience in medicine. That is why the Society for Science-Based Medicine is being founded. That is why I want you to join us.”

It’s clear that David’s hope is that he will be considered the super-hero of “SBM” (which, in my opinion, should be Science Bowel Movement).

That, and he wants your money. $85 a year to listen to his drivel? No thanks, I’d rather have 365 days straight of root canals.

I find it remarkably amusing that David lambasts organizations like Age of Autism for asking readers for donations, saying that their site really serves no purpose other than to promote quackery and pseudoscience.

So what does he do? He asks for money from his readers for a site and/or organization that serves no other purpose than to promote his version quackery and pseudoscience.

The reason why Science Bowel Movements is not as popular or noticed as some of the things they purport to fight is because everyone is waking up to just how much of a scam these elitist scum are performing.

Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at their guiding principles:

Respect for knowledge and truth – SBM values reality and what is true. We therefore endeavor to be as reality-based as possible in our beliefs and opinions. This means subjecting all claims to a valid process of evaluation.”

Except when that claim conforms to their own bias. In other words, they only respect their own version of knowledge and truth. Anything else should be attacked with rabid abandon, going so far as to stalk, harass, intimidate, and bully anyone they disagree with.

Methodological naturalism – SBM believes that the world is knowable because it follows certain rules, or laws of nature. The only legitimate methods for knowing anything empirical about the universe follows this naturalistic assumption. In other words – within the realm of the empirical, you don’t get to invoke magic or the supernatural.”

Except when it comes to how their pet theories work. You don’t have to understand it…it’s Science, man! Just trust them and don’t ask any questions!

Promotion of science – Science is the only set of methods for investigating and understanding the natural world. Science is therefore a powerful tool, and one of the best developments of human civilization. We therefore endeavor to promote the role of science in our society, public understanding of the findings and methods of science, and high-quality science education. This includes protecting the integrity of science and education from ideological intrusion or anti-scientific attacks. This also includes promoting high quality science, which requires examining the process, culture, and institutions of science for flaws, biases, weaknesses, and fraud.”

Except when it comes to examining themselves and those they agree with for biases, weaknesses, and fraud.

Promotion of reason and critical thinking – Science works hand-in-hand with logic and philosophy, and therefore SBM also promotes understanding of these fields and the promotion of critical thinking skills.”

Except when it comes to critically thinking about their own claims. You should just accept everything they say at face value.

Science vs. pseudoscience – SBM seeks to identify and elucidate the borders between legitimate science and pseudoscience, to expose pseudoscience for what it is, and to promote knowledge of how to tell the difference.”

Except when it comes to the science that conforms to their expectations. No matter how bad the science, if they agree with it, then it must be good science.

Ideological freedom/free inquiry – Science and reason can only flourish in a secular society in which no ideology (religious or otherwise) is imposed upon individuals or the process of science or free inquiry.”

Except when it comes to their religion. Thou shalt not question the science they agree with. Thou shalt not disagree with them or point out the flaws in their dogma…err scientific studies that they agree with.

Neuropsychological humility – Being a functional SBM proponent requires knowledge of all the various ways in which we deceive ourselves, the limits and flaws in human perception and memory, the inherent biases and fallacies in cognition, and the methods that can help mitigate all these flaws and biases.”

Except when it comes to themselves. This principle doesn’t apply to them.

They even go one step further, ridiculing a quote from Doctor Mehmet Oz:

““Medicine is a very religious experience. I have my religion and you have yours. It becomes difficult for us to agree on what we think works, since so much of it is in the eye of the beholder. Data is rarely clean. You find the arguments that support your data, and it’s my fact versus your fact.”

Dr. Oz is wrong. We have a way of determining what works: the methods of science. Like all tools it is only as effective as the person wielding it.”

Except that their interpretation of science is more akin to a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Which is religion.

I cannot help but laugh at these fools. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, apparently. Do as they say, not as they do.


  1. I find it a bit hypocritical on your part that you're critical of Gorski's claims without even presenting any evidence to refute his position. If you are going to claim that he and other proponents of science-based medicine hold a double standard of evidence, then you'll need to present clear instances of this. On that same note, you'll need to show that your position is unassailable by means of the evidence available and without relying on unproven or untestable mechanisms. Using ad hominem assaults and strawmen arguments will not be help you in being taken seriously as someone advocating for people's well-being.

  2. Not at all. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of mocking and ridiculing organizations like Age of Autism for asking for donations while asking for donations to promote his own form of quackery.

    "If you are going to claim that he and other proponents of science-based medicine hold a double standard of evidence, then you'll need to present clear instances of this."

    I have, many times on this site. It's not up to me to point them out to you.

    "On that same note, you'll need to show that your position is unassailable by means of the evidence available and without relying on unproven or untestable mechanisms."

    Why would I need to do that? I've given my opinion, and this site is full of my reasoning on why I came to those conclusions.

    "Using ad hominem assaults and strawmen arguments will not be help you in being taken seriously as someone advocating for people's well-being."

    You mean like Gorski has done? That's quite amusing, actually.

  3. David Gorski is a QuackJanuary 13, 2014 at 7:55 AM

    As Gambolputty mentioned, since Respectful Insolence is Mr. Gorski's personal site where he uses ad hominem assaults and strawman arguments to attack anyone and anything he doesn't like, does that mean that he shouldn't be taken seriously as someone advocating people's well-being?

    Not that I did anyway, but thanks for the validation :-)

  4. To the moron who just posted with a very offensive term that I do not tolerate on this site, your comment got caught by my spam filter.

    I do not tolerate the use of the "R" word.

    Using that type of insult here shows quite simply how how lacking your intellect and tact are. No matter how much I despise Gorski, I can say with absolute certainty that he would never use that type of insult. Even he has enough intellect, tact and compassion to avoid the use of that derogatory epithet.

  5. Here's a primary example of Dorkski's hypocrisy.

    We're told, again and again by that mindless slime that "anecdote is not data." When a parent of a vaccine injured child tells their story, he repeats the above mantra, and then mocks the parent for having confirmation bias.

    So, what does he do? He regurgitates a poorly researched article from another slimeball who thinks he's a journalist that is purely anecdotal. It's an article about Evan McCarthy's grandmother.

    Even though it is pure anecdote, Dorkski and his kiss-asses accept it as gospel. Why? Because it confirms their biases.

    The man is a hypocrite and a joke.

  6. $85 a month to read that egomaniacal douche-bag's self-important twaddle?

    No thanks. I'd rather be tied to a chair and forced to listen to Justin Beiber tunes while having my tonsils removed with a rusty spoon

  7. New study came out in the past few days that shows that infant exposure to the DTaP and HepB vaccines had a greater risk for autism:


    Prediction: Because it is written by the Geiers and Dr. Hooker, it will be dismissed off-hand without even evaluating the data.

  8. Spot on, mate:


    "Haven't read the article, but the Geier family (not a distant relation, I assume) are notorious quacks."