The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

When a Social Skeptic Claims to be Evidence Based

gollum skepticsOh so you’re evidence based. I should go cower in my corner of delusion. I am so impressed. One must understand that claims to being ‘evidence based’ or ‘science based’ are t-shirts which fake skeptics wear in order to maintain an air of unquestionability. Remember, it is not about the science, the issue at hand, or any concern for your health at all… it is always about them – how they are perceived. This is their One Ring. This is much more important an issue to them than your health. This is obdurate cruelty and malevolence.

If I had listened to this incompetent Richeliean Appeal dickhead from Science Based Medicine, I would have never felt the fresh breath of life which flowed into me the very 10 minutes after I took my first L-methylfolate under my tongue. It is like being able to breathe ATP and oxygen, for the very first time. It is that dramatic for me.

Millions suffer today from the same depression, disease and anemia producing malady – why? Because of ignorant people just like this, speaking as authorities.

Folic Acid vs Folate

I recently had a social skeptic member of Science Based Medicine and ‘doctor’ tell me, no actually he screamed at me and called me a ‘dumbass,’ that there was ‘no difference between folic acid and 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (L-methylfolate or levomefolic acid)!’ He contended through the artifice of rhetoric (remember there is always a targeted victim inside rhetoric, it is never innocent) that the two compounds are exactly the same chemical. I sincerely wish physicians were better trained in organic chemistry; but sadly sometimes, the position of authority runs to their heads and they begin to no longer listen, study or learn.

In this particular case, I began to smell the oft-too-familiar rotting stench of old incomplete science and enforced dogma. This physician’s occulted-but-main (rhetoric) point being that the substance behind the relatively new study of the MTHFR mutation and its role in potentially disconjugating  levomethylation of synthetic folic acid, was bunk. When I challenged his claim as unsubstantiated and an intimidating appeal to authority (actually this particular person practices the dark art of the Richeliean Appeal), he responded by making the astounding claim that he was ‘evidence based’. I love it when a social skeptic takes a fairly immature arena of study and immediately declares one well supported aspect of it to be bunk-through-the-evidence. Spinning the fairy tale that they were just awash with evidence from a whole career of studying the issue themselves (presciently aware that this necessity would arise some day), along with the 1255 other nascent issues inside which they claim expert authority through the simple self-designation of being ‘evidence based’. This type of denial action constitutes probably an 80% Pareto of typical social skeptic specious bunk aspersions.

His contention under the scientific method, his guilty null, was that folic acid, the synthetic form of the isomer, has been scientifically proven to be sufficiently equally as effective in every human body as the food nutrient, levomethyfolate. Not only that, but enough proof had been brought to medicine such as to render any claims and research to the contrary, pseudoscience. Remember that the Omega Hypothesis affords the fake skeptic the luxury of contention that the science is done, and no further research is warranted. I won’t go into the specifics here, but that contention turned out to be grossly false when I examined conclusions inside both the old and the new studies on folic acid. We have very scant data on exactly what happens to folic acid as it enters the human body, only a couple ideas and a beneficial 1983 to 1991 suggestive study series on pregnancy and neural tube defects.¹ Don’t get me wrong, folic acid fortification has produced beneficial results in general, so we do know that it is effective in many human bodies. But this is certainly not enough basis for an all too preliminary claim to ‘consensus’ or ‘evidence’ on the actual scientific method question at hand. More recent science which has actually looked at the issue and asked the correct scientific question, has falsified the Science Based Medicine doctor’s extraordinary claim.² ³ Folic acid is neither the same chemical nor is it processed in the same fashion, nor is it fully effective in any resulting levels of levomethylfolate, in every human body.† His evidence boast turned out simply to be exactly what I had smelled, an appeal to authority.  To sling your title in medicine around (one not even related to this research), and yet not even be able to get either the science or the medicine right, is pretty abysmal. He was still fighting a fight in his head from 1996 FDA rancor and politics.¹ But this is a pattern with this group. Technicians pretending to be scientists; and not only that, scientists attempting to squelch research in a variety of fields and issues of grave human impact.

This is not only quackery, but is more diabolical than quackery.

One must understand that claims to being ‘evidence based’ or ‘science based’ are t-shirts which fake skeptics wear in order to maintain an air of unquestionability. Remember, it is not about the science, the issue at hand, or any concern for your health at all

…it is always about them – how they are perceived. It is a costume. A lie.

misinformed vs lyingThey take a couple outdated and partially salient studies, and conflate them into a disproof, King-of-the-sHill, you-must-disprove-me-now, false claim to scientific knowledge (See The Five Types of Null Hypothesis Error). For me as an ethical skeptic, and not having carried around an old argument in my head for 30 years, scripted to defend ‘settled science,’ I had to actually go do a little research, use my past experience and do some personal testing. I did not adopt a rehearsed old talking-points script at face value – then claim to be an expert. Such a thought!

This premature claim to being an expert based on evidence, is not the same error type as is the state of being misinformed – and a person who practices the philosophy of ethical skepticism understands this. I might be misinformed, but I will not push claims of expertise within arenas inside of which I have a high risk of being wrong (see Kilkenny’s Law below). The former error is simply wrong; the latter not even wrong – rather it constitutes lying.

Callous lying which serves to harm millions of people. Claims to expertise which bear false information resulting in harm (or even bearing potential harm) to large portions of the population, like those of us with the C677T SNP (Ala222Val) mutation. That is the essence of malevolence. I, like millions in my genetic ilk, suffered decades of depression and anemia from this deficiency complex – a situation fostered by Science Based Medicine and people like this nasty cretin.

As it turned out in this case, levo-methylfolate is quite a bit different in chemical formulation and effectiveness from folic acid. In fact, so much so that the body treats the two in entirely different metabolic pathways, choosing to route man-synthesized folic acid for metabolism in the two phase conjugate toxin cycle of the liver, and routing food-borne levomefolic acid directly to the cells.  And here is why, there are three key differences between the naturally occurring element in food, and the synthetic chemical base:

levo (lē´vō) /organic chem prefix/ – a prefix applied to the name of optical isomers that rotate the plane of polarized light to the left (as opposed to dextro- right). An extra carbon atom presence and valences for 6 added hydrogen atoms causes a 90 degree left hand bend called levorotation. Compounds produced for use in the body can be made to work by fitting onto a certain part of a molecule it targets, the receptor, by means of its stereo structure (levo or dextro rotation). This is very important if the molecule ‘key’ is to fit the ‘lock.’  Levo simply means a left polarized lock-fit enabling the compound to perform a function in the body it could not otherwise accomplish.

methyl (meh´thl) /organic chem prefix/ – a prefix applied to an isomer made bio-effective by an applied moiety, -CH3. In  this case, the liver treats folic acid as a toxin and attaches a phase-II methyl bridge to allow it to be processed out by the human body safely. But not every body is equally effective at accomplishing this step.

folate (fō´lāt) /food vitamin B9/ – the cell receptive form of vitamin B9 which also occurs naturally in food. Folic acid has never naturally existed in food.

What Mud Bookman Old StyleBottom line: the mechanism, observations, science and the epidemiology all clearly demonstrate that folic acid and levo-methylfolate are not the same compounded substance nor effective expression in every human body at all. Moreover, this misunderstanding has resulted in harm to a great portion of the human population.³ † ‡

Nor are they anything alike in terms of handling inside the human body. Anyone who worked in the industry to overcome the levo-thyroxine, levo-triiodithyronine pseudoscience which was formerly spun by this same outdated-science, smarter-than-thou group (who were finally defeated by the real science on that set of issues in similar ilk to this battle) knows this well. The problem with the claim that folic acid is the same thing as 5-methyltetrahydrofolate inside the human body is that it is a baseless extraordinary claim and further ignores the facets of well established scientific differentiation (above). It dismisses a new horizon of risk inside human health, the MTHFR mutation series, and its impact on the ability to Phase II Conjugate toxin-convert synthetic folic acid in the liver, into levomethylfolate for further delivery to the cells.  The problems with this reside in the following:

  • New:  The science behind the MTHFR mutation series is a horizon of significant unknown³ – the claim by social skeptics that this research pathway is bunk, is an extraordinary claim (see Kilkenny’s Law below).
  • New:  The claim that synthetic folic acid is effective in every human has been falsified² – one must understand when a social skeptic is implying and enforcing an extraordinary claim to the contrary – based upon outdated science, they will not admit such at face value.
  • Risk:  The implications of the MTHFR mutation and the role of folic acid versus methylfolate in the human body comprise a significant amount of human health risk issues³ – when risk is routinely ignored by a person who claims to ‘follow the evidence:’ this is tantamount to an appeal to authority – and should be ignored.
  • Risk:  Foods do not naturally contain, nor does the body direct to the cells, folic acid – there is always a risk in making the naturalistic argument, but in this case the body definitely is commenting upon the difference between the two isomers by routing one to the liver and the natural form to the cell.
  • Risk:  The science upon which the conventional wisdom was founded, that synthetic folic acid is metabolized in the intestines of all humans, has been falsified² – any time old and outdated studies have been shown to be, at least in part or in whole, false – then the issue of making a claim to evidence is simply an appeal to authority.
  • New:  New science has indicated that a significant amount of folic acid is actually chosen by the body to be processed by the liver² – this introduces a new risk in human health, in that the liver of most modern consumers is under heavy stress from environmental toxins and glyphosate; therefore,
  • Risk:  New science has indicated that a significant amount of folic acid is actually chosen by the body to be processed by the liver.² – for those who study human health and test their liver enzyme on a regular basis, enough said there.

To ignore all this in favor of personal aggrandizement, especially if one claims to be a doctor, is the height of cruelty and obdurate malevolence.

The experience which ethical researchers have had with regard to this and other tough medical issues with respect to human health, introduces an important aspect of Ethical Skepticism which must be kept in mind before one enters into a discussion where they are defending their rights to access to supplements and healthcare, from control oriented social forces. Remember, it is your health which is the key question inside the scientific method. You hold the Ockham’s Razor, so use Kilkenny’s Law, as thus:

Kilkenny’s Law

/philosophy : logic : evidence : skepticism : ethical/ : Final claims to expertise and evidence may be tendered inside established trade, transactional, technical and diagnostic disciplines. Therefore:

 I.  A conclusive claim to evidence inside a subject bearing a sufficiently unknown or risk-bearing horizon, is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority, and

 II.  Corber’s Burden: A sufficiently large or comprehensive set of claims to conclusive evidence in denial, is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority.

III.  If you have brought me evidence based claims in the past which turned out to be premature and harmful/wrong, I will refuse to recognize your successive claims to be evidence based.

Kilkenny’s Law

human bodyAs for me, I continue to use the things that Science Based Medicine indicates as bunk, as my candidate list of things to try regarding health. Their practices are so bad with respect to science that ironically they are useful as a means of sniffing out issues of potential health merit.  Supplementation by means of methyfolate is another example in the long chain of things I have found to be effective for my personal health, which were decried at first introduction by the screaming appeal to authority voices at Science Based Medicine. Let me be clear here:

The difference for me, between taking folic acid supplementation (which I have taken all my life) and levo-methylfolate, is as stark as the difference between a winter day spent with a sweaty-weak flu versus a healthy cool spring walk in sunshine.  It is that stark. The effect happens within 10 minutes after taking a L-methylfolate tablet under my tongue.

I have the MTHFR methylation C677T SNP (Ala222Val) mutation

If I had actually listened (as many people do) to this incompetent Richeliean Appeal dickhead from Science Based Medicine, I would have never felt the fresh breath of life which flowed into me the very 10 minutes after I took my first methylfolate under my tongue. It is like being able to breathe ATP and oxygen, for the very first time in a long time. It is that dramatic for me. The sweating of lactic acid, severe lack of energy, anxiety, weakness – all gone.

You sir, at Science Based Medicine, the evidence reveals you to be a malevolent and complete idiot.

Thank you again Science Based Medicine. The addition of methylfolate (and elimination of folic acid completely from my diet) to my daily supplementation has resulted in a great boost in my energy and quality of life. Now your mission will be to scream loudly that my supplies of methylfolate are ‘impure and dangerous’ so that you can tax, monitor and receive unjustified income from their value chain.  Meanwhile let’s ignore monitoring of pesticide I eat 3 to 4 times a day. No need for ‘evidence’ there. Yes, we all get this game.

Your incompetence in making medical recommendations has proved reliable yet again.

epoché vanguards gnosis

¹  Suzanne White Junod, Ph.D., USFDA: Folic Acid Fortification: Fact and Folly; 04/14/2009 ;

²  Patanwala, King, et. al; “Folic acid handling by the human gut: implications for food fortification and supplementation;” US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 2014, Jun 18 ;

³  Sang-Woon Choi, Joel B. Mason; Folate and Carcinogenesis: An Integrated Scheme; The Journal of Nutrition, Oct 28, 1999;

†  Oregon State University, Linus Pauling Institute: Micronutrient Information Center;

‡  Christensen KE, Mikael LG, Leung K-Y, et al. High folic acid consumption leads to pseudo-MTHFR deficiency, altered lipid metabolism, and liver injury in mice. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2015;101(3):646-658. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.086603;

February 22, 2016 - Posted by | Agenda Propaganda | , , , ,


  1. Hey man, what is your opinion of Edzard Ernst? I smell fraud from Ernst. Dr. Hann wrote important analysis.
    Enjoy master.


    Comment by Egger | March 19, 2016 | Reply

    • Ha! Dude! You hit me with a Meta-analysis right as I was writing my diatribe on meta-analyses. LOL! The blog has nothing to do with the study you sent. 😎 So take no messages from it. LOL!!!

      I will be examining this study and the work of Ernst. Thanks!

      TES 8)

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | March 19, 2016 | Reply

  2. Hi. Do you have an opinion on homeopathy? Thanks.

    Comment by Lee | February 25, 2016 | Reply

    • Hey Lee, great question.

      I am mixed on Homeopathy. The treatment of sickness with ‘like condition’ based medicinals is not something I have studied. So I cannot comment upon that version of homeopathy. The treatment of conditions with ‘infinitesimal dilutions’ is something which I would have difficulty in understanding how it works – the problem is that I have never ever encountered that version of homeopathy in my entire life – so I have no idea if it is even real. It must be, somewhere because this is what the pundits keep bitching about. But the HPUS does not define homeopathy in this way. So, baffled there. Finally, the list of effective and commonly used public domain medicinals in the HPUS irritates the hell out of some powerful people. So, the question is, which of those three things is ‘homeopathy?’ Why the mismatch in definitions? I smell Wittgenstein Error at play.

      I have created two blogs on my limited foray into homeopathy here, and while it is not a comprehensive research pathway by any stretch, it reveals enough for me to understand that an agenda, a well funded one, is underway to squelch probably all three of these definitions of homeopathy. When information is low, and propaganda is high – and the people being paid to create and enjoy that circumstance are seeking to remove human rights – something is wrong. The question, is why.

      So, I question movements based on the strawman of defining homeopathy as ‘infinitesimal dilutions.’ That is not how the HPUS defines the discipline.

      When I look at the homeopathic medicinals on the shelf in the store, the only difference I find is that homeopathic remedies cost way less than the big pharma solutions which have purchased the eye level shelving slots. Otherwise they invariably turn out to be the same ingredients and the same mode, form and dose.

      Thus, while I do not support homeopathy per se, I also do not trust the group decrying it at all. That is about as far as I have gotten with the subject. Sorry.

      TES 🙂

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | February 25, 2016 | Reply

    • Hey guys; My analysis of homeopathy and pseudoskeptis is avaliable:


      Comment by Egger | March 2, 2016 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: