Steven Novella’s article on Prince Charles reinforces my impressions that Charles has abused his position, very likely crossed the line, in his deluded promotion of various medical “treatments”.
Full article here:
If ever there was a case for the abolition of the undemocratic system known as “monarchy”, then Charles is it.
Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2011
Gimby’s article:
I’ve already written about the irresponsible and delusional behaviour of Prince Charles:
Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2011
It still amazes me that the sham called “homeopathy” has any foothold in the medical market. Homeopathy has been shown to be bullshit, being nothing more than a placebo. Homeopathy “treatments” can stop or delay people from seeking real treatment, see What’s The Harm. Homeopathy endorsements from oafs such as Prince Charles contribute to the bullshit and the harm. And not just the harm from a physical perspective, but harm from an intellect perspective where it is insidious in its ability to destroy critical thinking.
Here’s another post from Quackometer regarding the rather disgraceful privileged position of homeopathy in the UK and the BBC’s recent Newsnight programme:
Remember, homeopathy kills.
Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2011
DC’s Improbable Science provides an update on the so-called “College of Medicine”:
I share DC’s despair; the “College of Medicine” is really nothing more than a reincarnation of the decrepitude and morally bankrupt Prince of Wales’ Foundation for Integrated Health. I originally called the “College of Medicine” the “College of Un-medicine”. DC goes further and believes that "Antiscientific Council" would be a more apt description.
There is an established self-correcting process called the “scientific method” which helps us to determine what is medicine and what is bullshit. Ben Goldacre’s book “Bad Science” cuts through all the nonsense and gets straight to the point; the need for proper scientific trials. And by proper, this means: large scale, randomised, double-blinded, controlled, peer-reviewed and repeatable (using a systematic approach undertaken by the excellent and valuable Cochrane Collaboration).
Those that do not correctly follow the scientific approach and who try to foster us with unproven or demonstrably non-efficacious medical treatments are liable to be called quacks. At best.
Here’s a very short BBC Radio 4 audio of Ben Goldacre explaining the creation of the Cochrane Collaboration:
Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2010
…is Prince Charles.
Christopher Hitchens adds his comments at Slate:
A monarchy is an anachronism in any modern and true democracy. Unlike Hitchens, though, I personally don’t care whether Prince Charles as any sympathies for Islam or any other religions; Catholic, Anglican, Muslim, Jewish, etc. They’re all full of nonsense anyway. I’ve posted these links on before but they’re worth repeating:
I do care when Prince Charles espouses nonsense (homeopathy is a case in point).
He is in an un-earned privileged position protected by “law” and he has abused that position. We don’t need the monarchy and Prince Charles is a prime example for why the monarchy must go.
Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2010
There are many things wrong with Prince Charles. As a person, these are:
Of the above, his attachment to pseudosciences and other bunk demonstrate deficiencies in his critical thinking skills. It is for these reasons that I have previously called him a blithering idiot. I recognise that Prince Charles is what he is because of the circumstances forced upon him when he was growing up, that he is as much a victim as anything else. But he is what he is. And he takes great delight in that, and great delight in the huge sums of money that Duchy Originals makes for him in selling bunk. And for that he has earned no respect, no sympathy. I think David Mitchell’s article “Prince Charles isn’t a bad guy, but does that mean we have to listen to him?” is too respectful. Prince Charles’s position puts him in a highly influential piston, a position that he has not earned and which he as abused. He is a bad man.
There is another problem with Prince Charles; not so much of him as a person but of him being a member of the British Monarchy. Monarchies deserve no place in modern democracies. But many people do feel some romantic attachment to the Monarchy and I expect that it may take a very long time before there is constitutional change to finally remove this anachronism from British politics.
Some people argue that this would adversely impact the number of tourists visiting the UK. Perhaps. But I doubt that it will be a big impact. Tourists do not come to the UK expecting to see the Queen. Rather, I expect that one of their key reasons to visit the UK is to see palaces and the pomp and pomposity that surrounds that. Let’s be clear, all that can still be kept. But the head of state then becomes someone appointed to that role in a republic, perhaps rather like the way India or Germany appoints/elects a distinguished person to President; a person who has no real political role, but someone that people can look up to, someone who has earned the right to be respected.
Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2010
Charles Darwin, born two hundred years ago, published "The Origin of Species" one hundred and fifty years ago.
The first diagram is a redrawn and colourised representation of an extraction from his "Notebook B" page 36 circa 1837 where we see Darwin documenting his ideas on evolution. A scan of Darwin’s notebook is also shown.
Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2009