Sense About Science is running a campaign, Ask for Evidence to get more members of the public asking advertisers, companies, government bodies, and other organisations to set out the evidence they have for claims they make.
“If you are concerned about the risks or benefits that are being claimed on a website, product, advert, advice, publication or policy announcement, ask the people responsible to show you their evidence.
The links at the bottom of this page show you how – as consumers, citizens and patients – you can help put a stop to misleading claims about science and medicine, and why it matters.
You don’t need to be a scientist to ask for evidence. Remember, you set the standard of what will persuade you to try something, agree with a proposal or buy a product.
- Get advice on asking for evidence, whether you want to question a product claim, an MP or an article in the press.
- Contact us if you need scientific advice. Tell us what you’re concerned about. If you need it we have over 5,000 scientists and hundreds of organisations willing to help.
- Look at others’ experience of evidence hunting claims from detox shampoos to energy activating yogurt and MRSA resistant pyjamas, and submit your own.”
It’s important because if there is no evidence and there is no practicable way of obtaining evidence, accreditationism is not even a theory, but a myth or fairy tale.
Attractive to some, but scientists would say, untrue. So it’s strange how so many scientists fall for accreditationism. Perhaps they just adjust to what government enforces.
Why do inspectors who demand evidence of others not demand external verification of the cartel’s own system? Perhaps they themselves have been hoodwinked through the circular reasoning of mutual inspection by peer bodies within the cartel. Perhaps it’s just the job. They tick the boxes within the ISO dogma of inspection but never allow it to be challenged by real-world evidence from outside the comfort of the system itself.
There’s a great big hole here, isn’t there?
Who’s asking a Sense About Science scientist for evidence for accreditationism?
And while you’re chatting, ask what evidence there is for a good death.
You really should read it.
The term’s use is barely euphemistic. Unless UKAS can accredit the quality of death, of course there is no such thing. Some people passionately want to believe lies, but others are deceived unwittingly. Is not all death a failure? It’s not the way things should have been.
The term a good death is a nonsense one, but a subliminal manipulation to bring some into a pact with those committed to death. Broadcasters love these silly, politically correct phrases designed to disarm critical thought.
Jim Jones was just as affable as Terry Pratchett.
Another thing about these new death cultists is how technological and expensive they have made the business. It didn’t use to be a business at all. Where does the money go and why? Not so long ago folk dispatched each other or themselves with poisoned Kool-Aid (maybe),
or a simple cyanide capsule.
But is that only for the really, really guilty?
Why do people today feel they have to spend so much on themselves? Is it because they’re worth it?
This too shows how far some people will go to grasp at the illusion of control.
As with accreditation, it is the diligent and organised who may be at as much risk from this meta-government-endorsed death cult as the slow of thought, the impressionable, and the vulnerable.
It is almost as if commission is being paid in some form…or death’s advocates just don’t want to accept powerlessness or to die alone.
What would a good death for the accreditation cartel look like?