One-stop shop to make India 20 times richer

The fraud of ayurveda – further comments

For the deluded:

I am a graduate of Ayurveda and, I questioned the diagnosis, medicines, and surgery done by so-called SACRED healers.
Filed a complaint to Drug controller, but you know, Modi inaugurates a Reliance hospital and preaches how GANESH was cloned by Ayurvedic surgeons.

Dr Arun is 200% true and I congratulate him for voicing the issue.

The gullible and unsuspecting patients, fell prey to such Ayurvedic criminals, need be named as VICTIM and must be compensated, the culprits need be brought to justice. [Source]


Alternative Medicine Fraud

Continue Reading

Modi’s fascist state is now in full swing in India – people are being terrorised on a daily basis

Modi’s BJP has started terrorising ordinary people. India is now a 100 per cent totalitarian state. Police walk around abusing ordinary people, questioning their very presence.
Citizens now have to explain to the police why they are eating in a restaurant or walking on the road.
Such is the ideology of the RSS which has created the monster Modi and his goonda stooges like Adityanath.
The people of India have never valued liberty. They value religious totems more. They have a choice: join SBP and fight these goons, or get trampled underneath the feet of scum.

Continue Reading

Ayurveda/ Homeopathy as excellent ways to an EARLY DEATH

A comment received on my blog, I thought worth publicising. Even if I persuade one person to abjure ayurveda/ homeopathy, it would be a good outcome for humanity.

I’m a general surgeon who stumbled upon this blog while putting together a case series on anal canal cancer. Going thorough the hospital records, to my amazement 26.4 percent of all patients (138) over the past five years who were diagnosed with this cancer were “treated” by Ayurvedic and homeopathic doctors for piles.

And therein lies the purpose of such blogs. These people who could have been treated by radical surgery will sadly now be treated by palliative measures. The pseudo scientific community of healers have to be questioned for their understanding of how basic medical sciences work.

– Arun Sharma   [See the comment here]

Continue Reading

Charles Murray – a racist, a goof, a classical liberal, a scientist?

I have bumped into the works of Charles Murray from time to time. Recently I read his book, What it Means to be a Libertarian.

I have differences on a few issues, but overall, I’d rate this book “good“.

At the same time, there is the book The Bell Curve that Murray wrote in 1994. That book has earned him a major reputation as a racist across the world.

Before proceeding further, let me state that I’ve NOT read The Bell Curve. Nor intend to read it, since I’ve read far more recent and relevant stuff on the subject of IQ (and also commented in my book BFN, as well as extensively on this blog).


This is a pretty good takedown of Murray.

What I find problematic – from reading this particular review – is that Murray relied on Richard Lynn. Lynn is, in my opinion, a sad specimen of a “scientist”. I’ve extensively critiqued his work on this blog. Lynn is a an abomination with zero capacity to understand science.

Now, it is quite possible that Murray doesn’t understand science, that’s why he cited Lynn. But in that case he should not be dabbling in matters such as IQ which require a thorough grasp on the science of human biology. And economics.

Thomas Sowell, the great economist, took down Murray’s book. See this. I would tend to agree with Sowell.


Murray defends himself here, quite persuasively.

What this suggests is that he took on a subject without understanding it; came to no conclusion; but then managed to give the impression to readers that he had a bias towards the genetic explanation (even though elsewhere in the book he said he didn’t know the answer). Clearly this was a project that he should have left alone.

But here, in an interview 20 years later he said: “I immodestly suggest that “The Bell Curve” was about as prescient as social science gets.” [Source] – I think that means he believes he HAD said something meaningful. In which case he is fibbing about not having a view on the subject.

He actually said this: “Here’s what Dick and I said: There is a mean difference in black and white scores on mental tests, historically about one standard deviation in magnitude on IQ tests (IQ tests are normed so that the mean is 100 points and the standard deviation is 15). This difference is not the result of test bias, but reflects differences in cognitive functioning. The predictive validity of IQ scores for educational and socioeconomic outcomes is about the same for blacks and whites.” [Source]

Overall, his is a highly questionable approach.

And it is PURE NONSENSE to suggest that IQ has anything to do with modern trends (I’ve discussed this issue elsewhere).


American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray … told an audience at the University of Texas this week that there is no “evidence” showing that any woman has ever been a “significant original thinker.” He then said the reason for this was the smaller size of the female brain.

“When you compare the size of a man’s brain with that of a woman, there’s no comparison,” explained Murray. “It’s not that I have anything against women. They’re nice enough, but it’s just a physical fact that their brains have developed to the same degree that men’s brains have developed.”

“I’m not a doctor,” he added, “but it may have something to do with their need to develop breasts. The human body can’t do everything.”

His comments came as he was defending his assertions in a 2005 paper that women have not played significant roles in the field of philosophy. He argued that he could only recall a single female philosopher, “and she was not a significant thinker in the estimation of historians of philosophy. Until somebody gives me evidence to the contrary, I’ll stick with that statement.” [Source]

In 2005 he wrote a paper titled “Where Are the Female Einsteins?”

This is REALLY, really bad. The man is not just a goof, he is a fool.


Murray is a fool. He has little to no understanding of science but imagines he understands it. REJECT ALL HIS VIEWS ON IQ/ WOMEN/ HUMAN BRAIN, ETC. ETC.

Having said that, his work on liberalism would still pass muster and he is actually a reasonably competent classical liberal thinker. So you can read him occasionally, but with a GREAT PINCH OF SALT, for he is in a sense, quite STUPID.


He is totally wrong on universal basic income. [See this and this – instead, BIG is immoral, not moral]

Continue Reading

John Ruskin – a deeply confused (but influential) enemy of liberty (and he went stark mad in 1878)

Now to Ruskin.


“The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery, oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it enriches a class of idle and useless parasites.

“This doctrine was not the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed long before Marx entered the scene. Its most successful propagators were not the Marxian authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the British Fabians, the German professors and the American Institutionalists.” – Mises


“Adam Smith was ‘that half-bred and half-witted Scotchman’ who had taught the ‘deliberate blasphemy’ that ‘thou shalt hate the Lord thy God, damn his laws, and covet thy neighbour’s goods”. (The Complete Works of John Ruskin, 1903-1912. vol. XXVII; 764, and XXIX: 134; 212; 282; London: George Allen & Unwin). [Source]


John Ruskin who insisted that economic freedom would promote, not the wealth, but rather its opposite, the ‘illth’ of nations [From Fritz Machlup’s The Dismal Science and the Illth of Nations, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 59-63]


John Ruskin (1819–1900) vies with Carlyle as the pre-eminent antieconomist
of the Right, and (like Carlyle) is remembered almost as well for
his crazed anti-economics as he is for anything else. Adam Smith, in
Ruskin’s mind, was a ‘half-bred and half witted Scotchman’ (quoted in Fain
1956, p. 108) with ‘an entirely damned state of soul’ (quoted in Anthony
1983, p. 75).

Ruskin’s mind was too personal in its contents to conjure with the
sociological generalities of Right anti-economics, but he shared Carlyle’s
preoccupation with hierarchy and command, and expressed them
pungently in his anti-economics. Ruskin described himself as a ‘violent
Tory of the old school’ with a ‘most sincere love of kings, and a dislike of
everybody who attempted to disobey them’. [Source: Economics and Its Enemies: Two Centuries of Anti-Economics by William Oliver Coleman]


John Ruskin, perhaps the most fanatical of all enemies of economics.
I know no previous instance in history of a nation’s establishing
a systematic disobedience to the first principles of its professed religion.
The writings which we (verbally) esteem as divine, not only denounce
the love of money as the source of all evil, and as an idolatry abhorred of
the Deity, but declare mammon service to be the accurate and irreconcilable
opposite of God’s service. ([1862] 1967, p. 61)

To Ruskin the error of political economy lay in it ‘considering the human
being merely as a covetous machine’. No precepts of any worth could be
derived from such an assumption, for Ruskin professed an extreme altruistic
code. To Ruskin it is the moral duty of any superior to treat their subordinates
as their children, quite literally  [Source: Economics and Its Enemies: Two Centuries of Anti-Economics by William Oliver Coleman]


The influential Victorian art critic and anti-Enlightenment Tory socialist John Ruskin waxed rhapsodic about the virtues of war and insisted that “no great art ever yet arose on earth, but among a nation of soldiers. There is no art among a shepherd people, if it remains at peace. There is no art among an agricultural people, if it remains at peace. Commerce is barely consistent with fine art; but cannot produce it. Manufacture not only is unable to produce it, but invariably destroys whatever seeds of it exist. There is no great art possible to a nation but that which is based on battle.” [Source: Peace, Love, & Liberty – Students for Liberty]


“Modern science,” he writes, “economic and of other kinds, has reached its climax at last. For it seems to be the appointed func­tion of the nineteenth century to exhibit in all things the elect pat­tern of perfect Folly, for a warning to the farthest future.” He insisted that men and women “will neither be so good nor so happy as without the machines.” Of what value the electric telegraph, he asks, if you have no message of any importance or significance to send over it? Of what value your railroad trains, if they only serve the purpose of enabling a fool in one town to be transported to another at break¬neck speed? [THE UTOPIA OF JOHN RUSKIN – BY J. V. NASH ]


Ruskin denounced and repudiated nineteenth cen­tury industrial society and all its works. He would have none of it. What he proposed as a substitute was the return to a kind of medieval Arcadia, in which virtuous and trustful common people should work with their own hands on little farms, raising all their own food, and making, by simple handicrafts, everything that was needful for their welfare. The government was to be in the hands of a wise and good aristocracy, to which the common people should give unquestioning obedience. He would thus realize Plato’s dream of long ago. [THE UTOPIA OF JOHN RUSKIN – BY J. V. NASH ]


“We will have no steam-engines upon it, and no railroads ; we will have no untended or unthought-of creatures on it ; none wretched but the sick ; none idle but the dead. We will have no liberty upon it, but instant obedience to known law and appointed persons ; no equality upon it, but recognition of every betterness that we can find, and reprobation of every worseness. When we want to go anywhere, we will go there quietly and safely, not at forty miles an hour in the risk of our lives ; when we want to carry anything anywhere we will carry it either on the backs of beasts, or on our own, or in carts or boats. We will have plenty of flowers and vegetables in our gardens, plenty of corn and grass in our fields,—and few bricks. We will have some music and poetry; the children shall learn to dance to it and sing it ; perhaps some of the old people, in time, may also.”[THE UTOPIA OF JOHN RUSKIN – BY J. V. NASH ]


Griffin says, “He taught that those who had inherited the rich culture and traditions of the British Empire had an obligation to rule the world and make sure that all the less fortunate and stupid people had proper direction.” [Source]


John Ruskin was a grossly disturbed human being who fell conclusively
into madness in 1878. [Source: Economics and Its Enemies: Two Centuries of Anti-Economics by William Oliver Coleman]


His ideas on beauty have caused enormous harm – elitist ideas that looked down upon the live of the common man. It opened the path for the socialism of cities – excessive urban planning.

Continue Reading