Golden Site Home

In England in 1948 the then Labour Government set up what is now called The Welfare State, which means that the State looks after its citizens from cradle to grave.   Or rather this was the plan, but it is not how it has worked it.   Now it has been suggested that the USA goes the same way and many do not like it and neither, it seems do many in England, with one of our Euro MP’s saying why he does not like the Health Service as it presently exists. [Read more →]

In the last post Professor Regan was mention together with the fact that she recently had a series of programs on the BBC. One of the things it was said she insisted on was that the findings should be published in a recognised scientific publication. In another magazine I subscribe to had an article which raised questions as to what she meant by that.

Those who want us to, as they say, be scientific, also want us to believe that scientists are objective with no bias, and they only want to find out what is correct. This is not the case. No one, even scientists, are completely objective, we all have a way of looking at the world, which is governed by our core beliefs, which are never tested, and in many cases cannot be.

The above mentioned publication mentioned Stephen Gould, who in 1982 in How Science Changes with the Political Climate. U.S. News & World Report said:

“People need to realize that scientists are human beings like everyone else and that their pronouncements may arise from their social prejudices, as any of our pronouncements might. The public should avoid being snowed by the scientist’s line: “Don’t think about this for yourself, because it’s all too complicated.”"

And in Natural History Issue 103 he said:

“Our [scientists] ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ’scientific method; with individual scientis as logical and interchangeable robots, is a serlf-serving mythology.”

The magazine is from the U.S. and reason it was published was because President Obama is promoting what is being called “consensus science”. This doesn’t mean that scientific experiments have to be conducted and each time they are those conducting them get the same results. What it means is that when enough scientists agree about anything it become the new orthodoxy, in other words it becomes a religion and those who do not belong to it are marginalised. There is another danger Professor John Christy said on 13th November 2007 on the BBC News:

“The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know”….. You dare not not be thought of as “one who does not know”….. This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.”

History provides many examples of lone individuals who take on The Establishment and are persecuted by those in authority for daring to do so. And in most cases they have proved to be right and those who opposed them wrong.

One aspect of this was looked at in the last post and much of what is said in other posts are based on programs broadcast by TV companies in the UK. Channel Four, one of our commercial TV companies are the pioneers in bringing what is happening to our food to the notice of the British public. The presenters of these programs are well known for the organic credentials. But now the BBC has decided to get in on the act. There series of programs Grow Your Own Drugs was mentioned in the last post. [Read more →]

It has been demonstrated previously that once something, be it natural remedies, organic food etc, the supermarkets, chemists, etc jump on the bandwagon and start selling what they claim is the same as those who pioneered it sell, but scientific experiments show is not. Then The Media start looking at it and raise what they see as the difficulties and finally the drug companies oppose it. [Read more →]

We have been called a Nation of Animal Lover, but many people differentiate between animals such as dogs and cats, which they consider to be pets and animals reared for food. [Read more →]

The only way to do this is by adopting healthy eating habits, and not pursuing crash diets hoping to loose unwanted pounds in a few days.

Many of these fad diets, such as the notorious and outright silly Cabbage Soup Diet, will undermine your health, cause physical discomfort (abdominal discomfort and flatulence (gas) ) and lead to the yo-yo effect of gaining weight soon after losing it. In other words the risks aren’t worth the rewards. [Read more →]

Do You Weigh What You Should?

If you answered yes to Question 2 then it is more likely you are over then under weight. We are continually being told that more and more people are overweight and that we must do something about it. [Read more →]

To many people organic only means to be grown in a certain way, but it is much more than that.

Due to the popularity of organic foods the supermarkets have got in on the act, but what they are doing goes agains the whole ethos of the organic movement. [Read more →]

This is the claim made by those who support these methods with them accusing those of do not agree with them of being unpatriotic, not caring that people are starving, etc. But do these claims stand up to scrutiny? If they do not then we all have problems, particularly if they have convinced the government that they are the answer. [Read more →]

A lot of people, indeed, most, believe that organic food is better for you and for the planet than conventional food, but this doesn’t usually equate to action, i.e. this is what they buy, particularly if it is more expensive and money is short. [Read more →]