Found on EXTRAORDINARY MEDICINE The truth about homeopathy is the following claim:
Media Skeptics: A Popcorn Gallery
The skeptical movement is an offshoot of the Communist Party. (Really: see the top two links below.) Its top organizers were hired by pharmaceutical company and medical industry representatives to recruit malcontents in bars to spread hate propaganda against non-conventional medical systems. One of the first such skeptic groups referred to itself as “Skeptics in the Pub”. Not surprisingly, their rants against homeopathy sound like the drunken cacophony of soccer hooligans.
For convenience, the top two links mentioned are:
– The Weird Beginnings of Skeptic Confusion and the Philosophy of their Cult Leader
– Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism
While this might be read as a question being a bit meta-ish; I am really wondering that despite the whole bunch of big claims working together seems like a conspiracy that seems to not work out all that well, whether there is any truth to the "made (up)" connection of any "communist party" (the second link to the book only always talks about the "Revolutionary Communist Party"?) and either "skeptical movements" (or prominent individuals thereof).
It seems to me that the claimants think this link to communist origins is inherently disqualifying, "obviously"? But this is not intended to go into how this claim is used. – I just want to know if there are indeed any "organisational" links, a kernel of truth in this polemical accusation. "Completely made up" claims often work not as good or even well than twisting the truth. Was there a plan set successfully in motion to create a movement or a not small scale link in personnel between a communist party and a group of skeptics?
Admittedly, on the face of it this claim looks like something of a simple smear campaign. But how should that have worked at all? From a saner perspective this is even more funny: "go forth and destroy capitalism by discrediting their most powerful medicinal system: homeopathy"? These theoretical reasonings are unsatisfactory on their own.
For notability: this made the rounds on Facebook and the originating site also claims to be supported by
Canadian Consumers Centre for Homeopathy (3CH),
National United Professional Association of Trained Homeopaths (NUPATH),
National Center for Homeopathy,
Ontario Homeopathic Association,
North American Society of Homeopaths,
Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century,
British Columbia Society of Homeopaths,
Canadian College of Homeopathic Medicine,
British Institute of Homeopathy International,
Homeopathic Medical Council of Canada,
Ontario College of Homeopathic Medicine
With apparently especially close ties to "Thank you to the National Center for Homeopathy and David Brule for writing help on this page." ––– Notability is hopefully just about the number of people believing an un- or badly referenced claim, not about the personal qualifications of claimants, believers, quality of the claim, consequences of or usage of the claim in question or personal views from either party. If the notability is questioned with "it connects with notability in that smear tactics from the homeopathy community towards skeptics is commonplace." negatively, then isn't it all the more notable?