Friday, May 31, 2013

Instead of GMO labeling laws, perhaps what we need is...

There has been a lot of debate recently over whether or not food companies should legally be required to label their foods as being either GMOs (Genetically Modified Organism) or not if they happen to actually be GMOs.

Supporters of these laws claim that this would give consumers the ability to know what they are buying, and whether or not they are actually buying something that is organic or not.

Critics on the other hand claim that such laws are unnecessary and even excessive, since it is well established that most foods are in fact either considered GMOs (technically speaking all foods are actually GMOs in one way or another) or at least would not be considered organic by many people in the organic food community, and that many people who do produce organic foods already label their products as being organic.

While this labeling law debate is sure to not go away any time soon, I do wonder if perhaps the anti-GMO crowd is going about this the wrong way. Perhaps instead of there being GMO labeling laws, there should be  organic food labeling laws instead.

While the GMO food industry is heavily regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (despite what many people in the anti-GMO crowd believes) there is actually very little regulation for the organic food industry.

In the United States there are no laws that says what foods are considered organic, and what foods are not considered organic. In fact anyone can actually claim that the food that they are producing is organic, when in fact what the food that is being produced is not considered organic by anyone's standards...

While the United States Department of Agriculture does have a organic foods certification program that is regulated, there is no legal requirement in the U.S. that says a company has to go through this certification program before they start to claim their food product is organic, and no one can do anything about because there are no laws that says you can't do that.

It's even possible that some food producers will claim that their food is organic when it really isn't simply as a selling point, and so that they have an excuse to sell their product at a higher cost than what it really should be selling for in order to make a larger profit...

Also, the fact that there is no legal requirement for what can and can not be labeled organic foods might cause people not to wash off fruits and vegetables because they might not think it's necessary if they believe it's organic (this should be done anyways regardless if it really is organic or not as the USDA actually allows the use of pesticides for it's organic food certification program, and it's just common sense to do that anyways).

What really is needed is not GMO labeling laws, but organic food labeling laws, because not only would it be far easier and cheaper to implement (simply put, if someone doesn't believe that their product will receive a legal certification of being organic, they're probably not going to waste the time and money to try to get their product legally certified as organic in the first place when they can go on and sell it as it is, and they most likely won't claim that their product is organic because they won't want to face the legal circumstances if they do and they are not suppose to) and it would also allow consumers who choose to buy organic foods to know whether or not the food they are buying is in fact truly organic, and not just something some company claims.

At the very least it would help prevent companies from making fraudulent claims about their products...

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Debunking the Anti-Monsanto/Anti-GMO claims

On May 25, a local group held a protest near where I live to protest Monsanto and GMO foods.

The protest itself, while larger than what I actually expected, wasn't as large as what it could have been, with maybe only about 50 to 60 people attending.

Now about a week before this protest occurred someone was going the area and putting up some posters on lamp post and electric post not only advertising the protest, but also making several claims against both Monsanto and GMO foods.

I've looked into these claims that were made, and this is what I have found:

1. Monsanto fights labeling laws.

This is true [read here] but only to a certain extent, and there are a lot of other companies and groups (including scientists) that oppose these laws because many of them consider them to be unfair, and/or leaves to many loop holes, and many opponents also claim that these laws are really attempts to out right ban GMO foods.

Also, when the people of California were given a chance to vote into law Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, the voters rejected it, so really you can't actually blame Monsanto about that, because when given the chance, the people rejected such laws.

2. Monsanto's propriety and legal actions harm small farmers.

Monsanto has, since the mid-1990's, filled 145 suits against individual US farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed, and while this may sound like a lot, this is actually a very small number in comparison to thousands of individual, independent farmers in the US.

Also, only 11 of these suits actually went to trial, all of which Monsanto won.

3. Scientists' studies show severe damage to GMO-feed animals.

There was a study in 2012 by Gilles-Eric Seralini that claimed to show that rats feed GMO corn increased cancer rates in these rats compared to rats that were not feed GMO corn. This study has been highly criticized for certain unscientific methods (such as the failure to record the amounts of food the rats were feed and their growth rates) and has pretty much been debunked. [read here, here, and here]

4. Monsanto's Agent Orange and DDT contaminate food crops and villagers abroad.

Agent Orange was only used between 1965 to 1970 by the US military in Vietnam (before then they used a herbicide called Agent Blue). Even though this was true, you really can't blame Monsanto because they are not the ones who actually used it. It was various governments around the world who used it. Monsanto (along with Dow Chemical) just made the stuff.

As for DDT, most countries have been banning the stuff since the 1960's for agricultural use, and again, Monsanto is not the only company that made DDT, and it doesn't even make it anymore because of the 1972 US ban.

5. Monsanto falsely advertised it's Roundup as "biodegradable."

In 2007 Monsanto was convicted in France for false advertisement of it's product Roundup as being biodegradable. France is of course the only country that has done this, and some people might even claim that this is the result of France's environmental laws, rather than reality as Glyphosate (the technical name for Roundup) does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.

Whether Roundup should be considered biodegradable or not seems to be more of a matter of opinion then fact.

6. Monsanto blocks regulations. It's CEOs are in a revolving door from Monsanto to FDA (ex: Micheal Taylor, current Food Safety Czar).

This is completely false. Micheal Taylor (whomever he is) was never the Food Safety Czar. There has only been one Food Safety Czar, and that was Dr. David Acheson, and he only had that position from 2007 to 2008.

Monsanto can not actually block regulations, all it can do is lobby against laws and regulations that could affect it's business, and there is no "revolving door", so to speak, between Monsanto and the FDA.

7. Consumers rejected Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in milk.

The rejection of BGH in milk is a matter of consumer opinion, and has nothing to do with facts.

8. 400 scientists and 58 countries conclude that organic farming trumps GMO for sustainable, environmental,  and healthy agriculture. GM crops do not offer increased yields.

While studies have shown that organic farming, if done correctly, can be sustainable and environmentally friendly. If done incorrectly however the impact on the environment will actually be negative, and organic farming still requires more land than conventional farming.

Also, a crop's yield has nothing to do with whether or not it's a GMO, and has everything to do with the farming techniques used, and studies have shown that organic farming yields are actually less than those of conventional farming yields [read here].

9. Monsanto's control of the soy market results in 90% of soy market being GMO.

If Monsanto actually had control of the soy market then 100% of all soy beans would be GMO, not 90% as being claimed. Plus if farmers did not want to use Monsanto's soy bean seeds, then they don't have to, as there are other companies that sell soy bean seeds.

10. Allergies skyrocketed as GMO soy entered the system.

While food allergies have increased, and soy allergies are one of the more common food allergies, there is no scientific evidence that links GMO crops with the increase in food allergies.

11. Massive aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia is being used by the U.S. and the Colombian government as a counter-insurgency tactic, contaminating food crops and poisoning villagers.

There has been large aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia by the Colombian government (although there is no evidence that the U.S. actually is doing this to, and only gives support and training), the main purpose of which is to destroy coca plants (the plant which cocaine is extracted from).

While this has come under scrutiny for damaging legal crops and adverse health effects, the main criticism about the program (called Plan Colombia) has been about the cost and effectiveness.

Despite the fact that Roundup is used in this campaign, it doesn't mean that Monsanto is to blame for any damage done, as they are not the ones' spraying Roundup on these places.

Friday, May 24, 2013

5 Things I've noticed about... the Anti-Vaccination Movement

The anti-vaccination movement is a large group of like minded people whom believe that vaccines cause autism (along with some other stuff, but mostly autism). While there are a lot of things I've noticed about this movement, I've managed to narrow it down to five.

So here are five things I've noticed about the anti-vaccination movement:

5. There's no need for it to exist.

If you are part of the anti-vaccination movement, then you are in a movement that does not need to exist, and in fact shouldn't exist.

Every claim made about vaccines being harmful and causing debilitating neurological conditions (most commonly autism) has been proven to be false, and vaccines have been proven to be not only the cheapest method of disease control and prevention, but also the best, and the safest.

Complications from vaccines are rare (around maybe 1 and 1000) and mostly minor. Serious complications are extremely rare (around 1 to 2 per million), and deaths are even rarer than that.

4. It's biggest supporters are a bunch of cranks.

The biggest supporters (and leaders) of the anti-vaccination are not only people who should not be giving out medical advice, most of them aren't even doctors (and the ones that are tend to have some questionable credentials).

Jenny McCarthy, one of the top supporters, is not a doctor. In fact she left nursing school in order to become a model. She promotes therapies that are harmful, and she's also a liar too...

Andrew Wakefield, the ex-doctor whom's 1998 research paper that was published in the Lancet that claimed to show a connection between vaccines and autism, was stuck off of the British General Medical Council register (the British equivalent of having your medical license revoked) after the Lancet retracted his paper after it was proven his research was based off of fraud. He still claims his research was not fraudulent, and that there was a conspiracy against him to destroy his research (despite the fact that it took over ten years from the time his paper was published for his paper to be retracted, and for the GMC to strike off his name).

Then there is Alex Jones, who thinks that vaccines are being used to create genetically modified people and causes diseases, not prevent them.

3. The movement is based off of lies.

The whole bases for the anti-vaccine movement is based off of the proven fraudulent 1998 research paper by Andrew Wakefield that claims there is a connection between the MMR vaccines and austim. The paper was highly controversial even when it came out, and the claims made in it had been dis-proven years before it was formally retracted for fraud.

Other lies made by the movement are that vaccines have been made more dangerous over the years (in fact they have been made safer) and that and the rates of autism in children who are un-vaccinated is far lower then those that have been vaccinated, which is false. In fact the rates are the same.

2. People in the movement do stuff that's legally iffy.

Many of the things that people in the anti-vaccination movement do could be considered walking on the edge of the law, and even illegal.

Most states won't allow a parent to enroll their child into school unless they have been vaccinated.

Not vaccinating your child could be seen as form of child neglect.

The constant claims made against the companies that make vaccines could be considered liable and slander.

And even telling people that vaccines cause autism could be considered distribution of fraudulent medical advice.

1. What it's promoting is dangerous.

The anti-vaccination movement has been linked to the deaths of thousands of children, and not just children whom's parents got caught up in the anti-vaccine hysteria, but children who were to young to get vaccinated too.

Not only are people in this movement are putting their own children at risk of getting a serious illness, they're putting other children at risk as well. Not only is that dangerous, that's pretty selfish too.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Aura Cleanser: Another WTF Item

Sometimes you can find some really strange products on the internet. Some of these products honestly make me wonder how these things can even legally be sold, and why the website companies that these products are being sold off of would even allow these items to be sold using their websites in the first place. Recently I came across such a product on called Aura Cleanser, and the only thing I could think of when I saw this is, "why is this allowed on Amazon?"

In the product description of this spray, it first claims to do this:

  • AURA CLEANSER is a highly effective patterned recipe formulated to erase negativity in and around you on many energy levels.

Okay, how exactly can a spray, whom's contents are unknown, erase "negativity" (as if that's a real thing rather than just how you perceive the world and how you allow it to affect you) and effect energy levels on any scale?

The second claim goes as this:

  • This Essence was especially created to help neutralize and cleanse areas where it is sprayed.

Again, how is some simple spray going to "cleanse" an area of something that really hasn't been proven to exist, more or less yet been proven to actually affect a person's mind?

Now the third claim made says it can do this:

  • This powerful essence encourages energetic responses from multi-levels of consciousness, clearing any negative threat, psychic or otherwise.

There's no such thing as psychic powers, and thus no such thing as psychic threats, negative or otherwise. Also, what exactly is this so called "energetic responses" that it is said to encourage? In my opinion that is sort of vague.

The final claim made says this:

  • It also helps to heal damaged human electromagnetic energy fields (aura that have holes) resultant from destructive lower frequencies (cell phones, computers, etc.) and assists in healing, preventing or alleviating serious imbalances.

It has never been proven that humans actually have auras (and yes, this has been studied, multiple times in fact) and thus can't actually be damaged, and that low frequency waves (which is what I believe is actually being refereed to) from things like cell phones and computers are not strong enough to hurt you. If you're feeling any type of "imbalance" from sitting in front of a computer all day, it's probably not because of the computer, but probably because you've been sitting in front of a computer all day and not getting any fresh air and exercise.

Now the Aura Cleanser was invented by someone going by the name of Anthony Cooper, whom is claimed to be a "famous European alchemist", yet when I do a Google search for him, I can find nothing about him, and the only results I come up with are some New Age websites selling his products, a line of English Earls (although it appears that the first one did dabble in alchemy, which wasn't that uncommon back in the 17th century), and a character from the TV show "Lost". This lack of information about this "famous" Anthony Cooper, plus the fact that there was a famous Earl of the same name who did dabble alchemy, has led me to believe that perhaps this Anthony Cooper isn't even a real person.

In conclusion, even if it could proven that auras exist, it's highly doubtful that outside sources can even harm it, and for that matter, help it either, and that your own mind is more likely to help heal your alleged aura, rather than being sprayed with, whatever. On that note, it's also unknown what this bottle of "Aura Cleanser" contains. For all you and I know it could contain just water, or it could contain some actual harmful ingredients.

This is, in my opinion, just a big waste of money.

Friday, May 17, 2013

5 Things I've noticed about... Chemtrails

Chemtrails are a conspiracy theory that the government (and the allegedly existing New World Order) are spraying chemicals on the population from air planes high up in the air. After examining these claims there are certain things that I've noticed about these alleged chemtrails.

So here are five things I've noticed about chemtrails:

5. They're not doing what they're suppose to.

While chemtrails have been accused of being sprayed around for several different reasons, one of the primary reasons by people who claim they are real is that they are being sprayed for population reduction.

If this happens to be true, then what ever that is being sprayed isn't very effective, because the world population went from 6 billion in 1999 to 7 billion in 2012, i.e. the world population increased by a billion people in a span of thirteen years.

4. They're spraying to high up.

If I was going to spray the population with a bunch of chemicals, I wouldn't be spraying from six to seven miles up in the air, because I know what ever chemicals that were being sprayed are just going to thin out in the atmosphere and wouldn't be effective.

In fact most people who do spray chemicals from planes for a living (like crop dusters) do it while they are very close to the ground (about 20 to 30 feet) because it is far more effective to spray close to the ground than from high up.

3. They look and act an awful lot like contrails.

Now there are a lot of conspiracy theorists who will claim that there is a difference between chemtrails and contrails (such as how long it stays up in the atmosphere) but really how long one of these "trails" stay up in the air does not determine what they are because atmospheric conditions can keep a contrail up in the air for quiet a long time.

With this in mind it would really be impossible to tell the difference between the two.

Maybe they're all contrails like everyone else says?

2. Some people are seriously scared of these things.

There are some people who are seriously scared of what they believe are chemtrails, and won't go outside whenever they see what they believe are a bunch of chemtrails in the upper atmosphere, and will even spray vinegar around because they think it will get rid of the chemtrails and their chemicals.

Some people have become so frighten in fact that they are making threats to shoot down planes (which has become a real fear of pilots in Australia).

Of course there is no real reason for this fear, because...

1. Chemtrails don't exist.

There is zero evidence that chemtrails exist, and that they are nothing more then a bunch of contrails, and the affects of which and how they act are very well known, and have been for decades.

The chemtrail conspiracy theories have been around since the mid 1990's, and despite the many claims by conspiracy theorists, not one shred of real evidence has ever been produced that proves that chemtrails exist at all. The only evidence that conspiracy theorists have ever been able to produced are photos of contrails that were misidentified by conspiracy theorists, and photos and videos that had been altered by conspiracy theorists.

The fact is that belief in chemtrails is nothing more than a irrational fear brought on by a dis-proven conspiracy theory that really has no reason to exist.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Human Guided Spiritual Defense Waves... Pseudoscience at it's greatest (and Insanest)

When you explore the world of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, you often times find out that there is no deep end in the theoretical pool of craziness, and just when you think you've reached the bottom, you find out you're still not at the deep end.

Recently I thought I had found that deep end with the helmet that "stops alien abductions".

It turns out I was wrong, and that there is something crazier than even that:

What this claims is that human beings can use "spiritual energy" to get rid of chemtrails.

In other words, use something that's imaginary to get rid of something else that's imaginary.

Not only does the article claim that people can repel these alleged chemicals away, it also claims you can concentrate them and focus them on small area, even house.

In fact, it even says you should do so over the homes of members of Congress (which is a tad bit disturbing). It even tells you to "make them suffer" (which I would consider a threat, if I wasn't fairly certain this wouldn't work at all, and that neither of these things not even existing in the first place) and suggest using social networks to help organize groups of people to "focus" their "spiritual energy" in order to do so.

I also find it somewhat ironic that while this article encourages people to use such "powers" to basically cause harm to other people that they perceive is their enemies, the article also says, "When you understand this type of power, you really only want to use it to help, not hurt, but there is no reason not to use it for defensive purposes."

In other words, it's telling you to use this "power" to harm others, yet you won't want to use it to harm others once you figure out how to use it...

The whole bases for these claims about "Spiritual Defense Waves" and their alleged existence is this stuff called Rodin Aerodynamics, which is some sort of mathematical hypothesis created by Marco Rodin, and basically tries to explain that a person alter the world around them, and tries to show how mathematics does this, and that numbers are alive.

Basically it's a combination of pseudomathematics and quantum woo.

All this article is showing isn't how to get rid of chemtrails, but both how crazy some people who believe in chemtrails are, and the sheer lengths they will go to in order to get rid of something that doesn't even exist.

And, it also shows what type of people they really are. They are people who have no problem harming others whom they believe are harming them, even when they have no proof of this.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Still think Sylvia Browne has psychic powers?

A few days ago three women who had been kidnap from around ten years ago in Cleveland were found alive and well, and that the person who had kidnapped them the women was arrested.

This is of course a rare, but extraordinary thing to happen, as most of the time when a person is abducted by a non-family member they are, unfortunately, murdered.

In fact, the mother of Amanda Berry had been told about ten years ago that her daughter had been murdered, and the person who told her that was not a police officer...

It was psychic Sylvia Browne.

In 2004 Amanda Berry's mother came to the Montel Williams Show to ask Sylvia if she was alive:

Amanda Berry's mother asks Psychic Sylvia Browne 'Is she out there'

Sylvia Browne told the woman that here daughter was dead and that she was "in Heaven on the other side."

Fortunately, this wasn't true, and Amanda is still alive.

In fact, Amanda is being hailed as a hero because she is the one who escaped and called 911.

Sadly, her mother will never know this (at least not in this world) as she died in 2006.

Now, Sylvia Browne has commented on this, basically saying that even she is sometimes wrong, which any skeptic that has investigated her claims will tell you is greatly exaggerated. She really had no choice but to comment on this anyways because her Facebook page been flooded with people posting links to her failed psychic reading (among the people calling her an outright fraud).

This isn't the first time she has been incorrect on criminal cases like this one. In fact she has made readings for well over 100 missing persons and murder cases, and she has been correct for not one of them (which now includes this one).

I don't blame Amanda Berry's mother for going to Sylvia Browne and asking her if her daughter was alive or not. Her daughter had been missing for a over a year at that point, and she just was desperate to know what happened to her.

I know that, statistically speaking of course, that these types of missing person cases don't end well, and that Sylvia Browne knew this, and that she told Amanda Berry's mother that her daughter was dead not because of some clairvoyant viewing, but was based on what is basically an educated guess...

Of course, it doesn't even matter if Sylvia Browne was actually right and that Amanda Berry was in fact dead, the fact is that her "predication" would had been based on nothing more than a guess!

Clearly, she guessed wrong, and it's a good thing she did too.

And it's the only thing she did good in this case.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

5 Things I've noticed about... Televangelists

Ever have a boring Saturday where you can't find anything worth watching on TV, and eventually come across a preacher (commonly known as a Televangelists) preaching what they claim is the word of God? Well, I have a many of times, and there are certain things that I have noticed about Televangelists and what they tend to do.

So here are five things I've noticed about Televangelists:

5. They're very entertaining.

I openly admit, I think a lot of Televangelists are very entertaining to watch.

Their charismatic actions often times make them very humorous to watch. My personal favorite (in terms of entertainment value) is Benny Hinn with his "ability" to make people fall down on the floor when ever he touches someones.

Of course that entertainment value gets taken away when you realize the next four things:

4. They're always asking for money.

Just about every single broadcast a Televangelist makes, they're always asking for money.

Of course they don't actually outright ask you to give them money. They call it something else, such as pledging, or a gift, or "sowing a seed".

They also make it seem like they need that money right away, and they always do that while wearing suits worth $2,000 to $3,000, in studios worth $2,000,000 to $3,000,000.

3. They act like they have supernatural powers.

Televangelists often times act like their extra special with God, and that if you send them money, you will be in God's favor (and usually the more money you send them the better favor). Sometimes they will even pray on camera for the people who sent them money, just for that extra "favor".

Some of them also act like they can heal people from long distances away, or up close by touching you (and knocking you down in the process).

2. They promote a lot of pseudoscience.

Watch enough Televangelists and you'll notice they'll promote a heck of a lot of stuff that just isn't true, but is obviously something they would promote, like creationism, or faith healing, or that giving them money will result in you supernaturally making more money...

Some of it is not so obvious, such as the promotion of that eating certain foods and taking certain vitamins can drastically improve your health. They also promote biased historical revisions, and highly inaccurate and false information on sex, sexuality, and the transmission of STDs.

1. They're very manipulative.

If you read the first four things I mentioned, you can already tell that Televangelists are pretty damn manipulative, and that their main goal is to make money.

They can make people believe that they have supernatural powers, even after it has been proven that they don't. They can also make people believe that they are in desperate need of money, even if they live in mansions, drive luxury cars, go on these expensive trips to preach what they consider to be the word of God, and all the while asking you to give to them money while they wear $2,000 to $3,000 suits, while sitting in $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 TV studios.

Friday, May 3, 2013

10 Counter conspiracy theories

Ever hear of the term "Counter conspiracy theory" (which is in a conspiracy theory that is meant to counter another conspiracy theory)? Probably not, but you have probably read of a few of them (mostly when someone is having an argument with someone promoting a conspiracy theory).

So, I have decided to play Devil'e Advocate here and have listed ten counter conspiracy theories:

10. 9/11 conspiracy theories were invented by Al-Qaeda.

Ever since the 9/11 conspiracy theories started to show up, some people have made accusations that Al-Qaeda itself actually invented many of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and even bribed certain people within the 9/11 Truth movement to spread these conspiracy theories.

The problem with this is that Al-Qaeda admits to committing the 9/11 attacks, and even criticized Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for saying that the United States government did it.

9. "Shape shifting reptilian aliens" is a code word for "Jews".

Many have accused David Icke's primary conspiracy theory, that "Shape shifting reptilian aliens" control the Earth and impersonate leaders of the world, as being nothing more than a re-hashing of old Jewish conspiracy theories, and that "Shape shifting reptilian aliens" is actually a code word for "Jews".

While it is possible that "Shape shifting reptilian aliens" is a code word for "Jews", most antisemitic conspiracy theorists don't bother to use such code words. Plus, David Icke is pretty much crazy as hell, so it's actually possible that he really does mean "Shape shifting reptilian aliens".

8. Alex Jones is a fraud.

While many negative things have been said about Alex Jones and the conspiracy theories that he promotes (which also usually gets debunked) one of the claims that is made against him is that he is just a fraud, and that he doesn't even believe what he says, and that he is just making up conspiracy theories to make money from his followers.

It's true that Alex Jones has made a lot of money from promoting conspiracy theories, and there is proof that he is very manipulative, the problem is that there is no 100% proof that he doesn't believe in the conspiracy theories he promotes.

7. Police State conspiracy theories is made up propaganda.

While there is quite a number of "Police State" conspiracy theories (i.e. FEMA camps, false flag attacks, martial law, etc.) some people have accused these conspiracy theories of being nothing more than propaganda made up by extreme right wing groups as a way to help recruit, or at least attempt to justify their own actions.

While it is true that, like with most other conspiracy theories, police state conspiracy theories are made up, and are sometimes used as propaganda, with the exception of a few people, it can be pretty hard to tell if a person making such claims are doing so for propaganda purposes, or if they really do believe what they are saying.

6. "The invasion of Iraq was for oil" claims is nothing more than propaganda.

Even before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, there were claims that the invasion was for nothing more than to get that country's oil, and almost immediately there were counter claims that these accusations were actually being made up by those opposed the invasions, and even was created as a form of political propaganda (most of those accusations tend to be towards the Democrats and the former Iraqi government, but other groups are accused as well).

While it is true that many people who opposed the invasion also claim that it was for Iraq's oil, the problem is that they are also very sincere in their beliefs, and most politicians (even those who opposed the invasion) tend not to make those claims either.

5. Holocaust denialists don't even believe themselves.

There are a lot of accusations directed towards Holocaust denialist (most of which are probably true) one of the accusations is that Holocaust denialists don't even believe themselves, and that it is strictly made up antisemitic propaganda.

While it is true that some Holocaust denialists probably don't even believe what they are claiming, and are making these claims as nothing more than antisemitic propaganda, it is also possible that some of them really do believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, and that their bigotry is causing them to be willfully ignorant of the facts.

4. Tax protesters are just trying to get out of paying taxes.

One of the claims made against tax protesters (people who refuse to pay taxes because they believe that the IRS, income taxes, and most other taxes are illegal) is that they aren't doing what they do because they really do believe that the IRS and taxes are illegal, they're just doing it because they don't want to pay taxes.

While it is probably true that many so called tax protesters are only with the movement because they simply don't want to pay taxes, there are some tax protesters out there that really believe that taxes are against the law.

3. Creationists believe in evolution.

While many of the "claims" creationists have made to try to "counter" the theory of evolution are down right ridiculous (which includes the claim that the theory of evolution was just made up, or that it's an invention of the Devil), there are some people who claim that many creationist actually do believe in evolution, and that they are claiming that they don't either because of social pressures, or, for the high profile creationists, are just making up stuff to hold on to whatever power they have.

While many of the top creationist probably are trying to hold on to whatever power that they have, the odds are is that they really do believe in what they are saying, otherwise they wouldn't put out such ridiculous counter theories to evolution.

2. Global warming denialists are being paid to be denialists.

Probably one of the largest counter conspiracy theories out there is that many of the top promoters global warming hoax conspiracy theory are actually being paid by certain industries to deny that global warming either exists, or that it's being caused by human activities.

While it might be easy to believe that many of the top global warming denialists are being paid to promote the global warming hoax conspiracy theories, the problem is that there really is no proof that these people really are being paid to promote global warming hoax conspiracy theories.

1. Birthers are racists who are trying to get President Obama removed from office because he's black.

While many Birthers (people who believe that President Obama wasn't born in the United States) probably are racists, and that the conspiracy theory as a whole is fundamentally racist, some people actually accuse Birthers of making up the conspiracy theory simply to get President Obama kicked out of office because he is black.

The problem with this is that while it might actually be true for some, it might not be true that everyone who believes this conspiracy theory are just being racists who can't stand the thought of a black man as president, and there is really no proof for the most part that most of them don't actually believe what they claim.