Last month, Crikey released a guide to some of the most prevalent strands of science denialism. But in the age of fake news, there is plenty more pseudoscience populating the discourse. Here are some of the theories we missed, from the quackish to the outright bigoted.
Water fluoridation
What they believe: People believe a lot of things about water fluoridation. As early as the 1950s, it was being described as a communist plot to destroy America. Now, a number of harms are falsely attributed to fluoride, with opponents arguing it can cause cancer, make people dumber, and reduce fertility.
What the science says: For more than 50 years, numerous studies and nearly all reputable public health bodies have been saying that water fluoridation greatly lowers tooth decay, and there is no evidence for claims it damages people’s health.
Who believes it: Lots of people, from illuminati truther David Icke, right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and celebrity chef Pete Evans are vocal fluoride opponents. The state of Queensland is also on board. While fluoride has been added to water in other Australian states since the 1960s, Queensland held out until 2007. In 2012, LNP premier Campbell Newman put the decision to fluoridate back in the hands of local councils. Councils raced to opt out, fluoride coverage dropped from 90% to 79% in three years, and tooth decay rates among children began to creep up.
Gay conversion therapy
What they believe: That LGBTIQ people can be turned straight through a mixture of prayer, counselling and other, often more medieval practices like exorcisms.
What the science says: There is no scientific or medical evidence that sexuality can be changed. Conversion therapy is considered a form of torture by the United Nations. This week, Victoria became the first Australian state to move to ban the practice, after an inquiry found it causes serious long-term harm.
Who believes it: There is considerable evidence that conversion therapy is still happening quietly and under the radar in Australia. Few public figures will explicitly defend conversion therapy, but it has many apologists, particularly among those on the religious right who argue that attempts to ban the practice infringe on freedom of religion.
For example, Australian Christian Lobby director Martyn Iles labelled Victoria’s decision to ban the practice as “the most insidious attack on Christians and their churches I have ever seen in Australia”. Last year, Liberal Party branches in Victoria tried to introduce a motion at the party’s state council meeting pushing for legislation to allow conversion therapy. Then state party president Michael Kroger had to intervene to stop the motion. Prime Minister Scott Morrison, a devout evangelical, has refused to take a firm position on conversion therapy.
Chemtrails
What they believe: That lines of vapour left in the air by planes are chemicals used by a shadowy cabal of governments to manipulate the weather, poison crops, and control populations. In many ways a predecessor of our current age of fake news and disinformation, the chemtrails conspiracy emerged in the 1990s through early online chat rooms and talk radio.
What the science says: There is no scientific evidence supporting the chemtrails theory. While geo-engineering (or attempts to modify the weather) do exist, they tend to be small and concentrated projects operating at a research stage. The white lines created by airplanes are just vapour.
Who believes it: Unsurprisingly, Alex Jones believes in chemtrails. He’s joined in the movement by C-grade actor turned 2000s-era meme Chuck Norris; reality TV personality Kylie Jenner; and, sadly, Prince. Facebook groups for believers have thousands of members, and in a recent US survey, 10% of respondents said the theory was true, while more than 20% said it was partially true.
Homeopathy
What they believe: Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine dating back to the 18th century, based on the belief that substances which cause an illness in healthy people can be used, in highly diluted doses, to treat sick people.
What the science says: Homeopathy has long been discredited as pseudoscience. Any effects are, according to The Lancet, merely placebo. After a comprehensive review, the National Health and Medical Research Council concluded that there is no reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective, and that it should not be used to treat medical conditions.
Who believes it: Prince Charles is a vocal supporter of homeopathy, as are celebrities like Usain Bolt and Paul McCartney. British politics seems to have its share of supporters — Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn voiced some limited support in 2010 after he signed a parliamentary motion in favour of the National Health Service providing homeopathic treatments. On the Conservative side, then-health secretary Jeremy Hunt, a past supporter, asked the UK’s Chief Medical Officer to review industry-funded pro-homeopathy research.
Genetically modified food
What they believe: There is a lot of fear-mongering around genetically-modified (GM) crops. Much of it is related to concerns about the power of companies like Monsanto, that seek to use GM crops as a tool for domination of global agriculture with little regard for the environmental and health impacts they might cause.
What the science says: GM crops are no more harmful to your health than regular crops. The environmental impact of GM crops is slightly murkier; although in 2010, the US’ National Research Council found that they were slightly better for the environment than non-GM crops, with the caveat that over-reliance should be avoided. The upshot is that GM crops aren’t nearly as terrifying as many of their opponents claim, and in the context of an ever-worsening food crisis, might be essential to alleviating hunger around the world.
Who believes it: Much of the opposition to GM crops comes from environmental groups like Greenpeace. Activism from such groups was successful in getting GM crops banned in parts of Europe and Australia. Both Tasmania and South Australia currently ban the growing of GM crops. The Greens are generally opposed to GM crops, advocating a moratorium on their further release.
Yes, Prince did write a song about chemtrails. Its called “Dreamer” and he was convinced about the negative effects chemtrails had on the environment and ecologies, not to mention people.
Leading environmental scientists worldwide have condemned the practice. They are real and they are happening. You would have to be 100% totally ignorant, which most people are, to not see it.
Put some more marmalade on your toast, have a spell to think, then have another go at explaining your thoughts.
This attempt is not too clear, but a belief that most other people are ignorant puts you in a particularly bad spot.
Wasn’t too clear if this was serious, or taking the piss.
“Chemtrails” started in the European war when high altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft found they were being formed, giving away their position. They would often adjust their altitude to stop them from forming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bomber_stream.jpg
I think it’s u taking the piss. That link is a stup-d attempt to keep ignorant people ignorant.
@Fairmind
Well, I would if I could get it passed the moderator. One or two others have tried too. Crikey likes to make out that it is a viable alternative news site, but there is little evidence to support that.
It’s easy to select soft targets and ol chestnuts for criticism and exposure…I mean it’s fine and good, but it’s preaching to the converted. Show some guts for a change…just once.
Yeah, pollute the atmosphere with metal salts, alumin barium and whatever else so much the climate alters. Then set up a new religion called climate change and slug every man, woman and child to pay for it because their carbon foot-print caused it. Scam of the century that will never be exposed coz the intelligencia have built their careers, livelihoods, reputations, egos, businesses and whole way of living around their adopted new religion. Not to mention the millions/billions invested by govts and commercial interests. Nah, I am only jokin…I need the “likes” and the “followers” too, so I am stickin with accepted mantra, you’d be a nutter not to.
The naysaying cover-up trolls will say chemtrails are just jet condensation trails. How stupid can they be? A condensation trail vanishes after a few minutes – but a chemtrail has a life of 3-5 hours before slowly spreading out across the sky and sinking over the land. Besides, ground based chemical testing has proved beyond doubt the alarming increase of aluminium barium in soil levels of areas known to be sprayed.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Come on moderator! what word or sentence is offensive?..nada! Show some guts please.
It is simplistic to say that GM crop production has no negative environmental impacts. According to the chemical company Syngenta’s website, over 90 million acres of broad acre crops and 50% of all soybean crops in the US are now affected by glyphosate resistant weeds. Studies have shown a strong correlation between the take up of GM glyphosate resistant crops, increased use of glyphosate and the development of glyphosate resistant weeds in the USA as well as India and South America. The only way these weeds can be managed is by using stronger, often more toxic herbicides or by tillage which can lead to erosion, soil compaction and the loss of soil carbon. Additionally, many farmers apply glyphosate at much higher rates, increasing the risk of leaching into waterways where it can get into drinking water. While the GM plant foods themselves may not pose risks to human health, there is no environmental benefit and likely considerable long term environmental harm (when considered holistically, beyond the farmer’s fields) to using ever more toxic herbicides to control the superweeds that any person with a basic knowledge of evolution (or science) could have predicted would result from spraying the same chemical on crops year in and year out. At the time GM seeds were introduced, it was already well known that a wide range of pest insects and parasites had developed resistance to commonly used insecticides and anthelmitics. The GM companies denied this was a risk even as they were aware of resistance problems with their insecticide and livestock products. Now their websites offer farmers seeds that can be sprayed with even more types of herbicide, so the cycle can continue.
Yes. Monsanto are corporate criminals. Nothing less.
monsanto also prefer the F1 seeds produced by their ‘products’ to be sterile, along with any hybrids produced with non monsanto ‘product’. A world that relies on this company to produce its seeds is not far away.
addit- Not limited to monsanto GMO ‘products’
In addition to the above comments associated with GM foods and the environment, Kishor Napier-Raman ignores the science on food production which clearly indicates that we already produce enough food to feed 1.5 x the current world population. Globally, 30-40% of all food produced is wasted. The problem is not scarcity, it is poverty and inequality, related lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of knowledge. Our food distribution systems are inefficient. Further Napier-Raman succumbs to the idea that we might need GM to increase yield because of climate change, where others truly in the know suggest minimising climate change impacts requires diversification, & decentralisation of food production as essential, as well as building resilient and sustainable agricultural systems.
I’ve been enjoying your science deniers articles but must say I am a bit astonished that you have included the GM item in such a superficial and uninformed fashion. As your own scientific reference states, GM and GE are used interchangeably (something promoted by the GM industry to muddy the waters between the two). While the former may prove to be unproblematic, your reference claims that GE is more problematic, and its impact on health is yet to be determined. Books have been written about Monsanto and its dubious operations throughout the world as well as its treatment of journalists who try to expose the truth about these. I am sure Monsanto will be delighted to see you have included its critics alongside “science deniers” and the likes of “flat earth” believers.