Is it dangerous or is it risky ?

These two terms are very important by their meaning but are too often confused. But if you want to keep a clear speech, you must know the difference. It’s pretty simple !

Danger :

The existence of a potential threat, harm or death.

Examples :
– Climbing a ladder is dangerous, because you could fall and harm yourself.
– Traveling by plane is dangerous, because you could die.
– Not being vaccinated is dangerous, because you could die and kill other people.

Risk :

The probability for a danger to happen.

Examples :
– It’s unlikely for you to fall from this ladder, it’s less likely to harm you and even less likely to kill you. So it’s not THAT risky, but hey, be careful anyway. 😉
– Traveling by plane is actually the safest way to travel, so it’s very very VERY unlikely for you to die because of it, but it might happen. So it’s not risky to take the plane (even though the risk is still real).
– Not being vaccinated is very risky because you could put yourself and others in real trouble very quickly depending on environmental factors (are the others vaccinated ? Is there any disease around that can contaminate you ? Will it kill you ? Put you in unbearable pain ? How old are you ? How vulnerable are you ? etc.).

Conclusion :

You can measure the probability of something bad to happen by using the risk and anytime you risk something is because of a potential danger.

Join us ! Facebook / Twitter

Buying palm oil’s alternatives is a terrible idea for the environment

A report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Yes, an international organization working for the clear and noble objective of nature’s conservation (1) actually wrote a 134 pages report (2) in 2018 to explain why palm oil’s alternatives are worse than what they claim to replace.

I know you might be very skeptical about that but here is a resume from the IUCN website :—iucn-report (*)

The report does not claim that palm oils are good for the environment, obviously it’s still a huge biodiversity concern especially in tropical forests and this is what they say about it :

“Oil palm has been locally responsible for high deforestation rates. As much as 50% of all deforestation on the island of Borneo between 2005 and 2015 was driven by oil palm development. The current review indicated that in both Central America and West Africa between 1972 and 2015, oil palm made up 2–3% of forest loss. Where oil palm replaces tropical forest, the negative impact on biodiversity is significant. Conversion for oil palm has played a major role in the decline in species such as orangutans. However, some species, such as various pigs and snakes can, benefit from the presence of oil palm. Because oil palm is a long-lived crop, in mixed landscapes of oil palm and forests, older oil palm plantings can play some role in maintaining ecological connectivity between populations of forest species.”

It means that we cannot accept actual palm oils’ plantation policy. Some ecological solutions are envisaged but it’s not about stopping those plantations, it’s about making it as sustainable as possible.

But here is what we can also learn about it :

Because of its high yields, oil palm produces about 35% of all vegetable oil on less than 10% of the land allocated to oil crops.

p. 17

If you have to buy oils’ products, it seems like palm oil is the best option. Mathematically, it would mean that we could produce 100% of all our actual vegetable oil by using only 28,57 % of our actual land allocation for oils.
BUT obviously it’s not that easy.

Why ?
Because as the WWF’s 2012 report shows, 85% of the total palm oils’ production comes from Indonesia and Malaysia (3) (4)

Those numbers are also backed up by the IUCN’s report’s page 23 (PDF) :

So basically, it’s unlikely to see 100% of oil production becoming palm oil only.

Why alternatives are bad ?


As shown on this chart, any other oil would need at least 4 times more land to produce the exact same yield.

But why would it matter ?
First because countries producing oil today would actually use way more space and so deforest way more than today, and also because as the IUCN’s report says, it would only displace the biodiversity’s destruction… Plus the extra space (meaning extra water use, pesticides use, etc…)

Sounds terrible right ?

But you have a great solution ? Don’t you ?

Should we stop using oils product ?

That sounds great !… Doesn’t it ?

Well, more than 50% of packed products consumed in America (and other countries might not be better about it) contain palm oil. (4)

Now it sounds terrible.

But what are the alternatives then ?

Well, obviously you can stop buying and using any product with oil inside (and stop buying oils in any form) but that would be complicated. The best solution is to search for products using oils with a RSPO label (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) or any other that exists or will exist.

As terrible as it sounds, it’s our best solution right now. If you stop buying products with palm oils but keep buying other products with oils inside, you’re basically making it worse for the environment.

Conclusion ?

Replacing palm oils’ products for alternatives with other oils only for environmentalpurpose is : BULLSHIT SCIENCE.

Join us ! Facebook / Twitter

References : (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)—iucn-report (*)—iucn-report (*)

Consensus : how does science work ?

What does “consensus” mean ?

First things first, a consensus is “a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people” (1)

In the case of science, a consensus is made inside the “scientific sphere” and the general public can’t and won’t have a word to say about it.

Why ? Let us explain.

Elitism ?

The objective behind that “rule” isn’t to exclude the public from science debates or from any science related stuff at all.

The only objective is to find a conclusion about a subject that follows a very strict protocol called the “scientific method“.

Obviously, citizens are totally able to understand and to follow such a protocol but it’s very unlikely they can both have the expertise in a specific subject and the ability to follow very strict rules to stay as objective as possible if they’re not a scientist themselves.

What is so problematic ?

General public is very unaware of how science actually works. The main problem is that any “consensus” is taken as an opinion but it’s actually quite the opposite. A consensus is made by looking at a LOT of studies and their conclusions to be able to determine a potential final answer to a specific subject. This makes it a VERY objective conclusion, not an opinion.

For example : climate change.

The actual consensus on climate change is that it’s happening and it’s mainly caused by humanity.

This statement is NOT an opinion and is NOT subject to any debate outside of the scientific sphere.
Scientists agreed on this idea at a rate of around 90% and up to 98% since many years. (2)

Does that mean that it’s the very truth and that the scientific consensus will never change on this question ?
Absolutely not. It just means that with all the information we gathered to this day, we are not able to determine a potential other cause for the climate change.

But a consensus does not mean unanimity !

That’s totally right, actually, this is an other problem. Some people will use it as an argument and will try to convince you that some scientists will disagree with the actual consensus and it’s a proof that science is wrong.

First, this is very wrong to accept the opinion of a few scientists among a very very large majority of their pairs JUST BECAUSE they seem to agree with your opinion.

Most of the time, scientists who won’t agree with a consensus are NOT experts in the domain of the said consensus (for example a scientist that is not a climate expert doesn’t have the same impact as an expert on the “Human made” climate change consensus).

But some of them will be experts.
And this is where we enter an important part. It is essential for science to have people that will keep pushing to prove that the actual consensus is wrong as long as we still have things that don’t fit in the actual theory.

But these people are NOT saying that the consensus is false and are NOT a proof that the actual consensus isn’t serious, objective and scientific.

But in history, consensuses have already changed multiple time !

Absolutely, as we said before, a consensus is made with the materials we have gathered to this day. It means that it could potentially change. But for that, we don’t need only to find that one data is inexplicable or is against the actual consensus. Nope, you’ll need a LOT of data to start a scientific consensus shift.

A problem between a single data and the theory can have multiple causes and most of the time it’s caused by the way data has been gathered.

But it may occur that a data and the main theory don’t fit together for real. Does it mean the theory has to be thrown to junk ? Absolutely not. A theory isn’t perfect and can be completed by further discoveries !

But the final answer is : unless you’re a scientist, just believe the actual consensus and refer yourself to it. Understand why it’s believed to be the best theory and maybe even be curious about what doesn’t fit in the theory yet. Being skeptical is a very good thing, being curious too. But don’t fall into conspiracy theories. You can doubt a research’s results, you can doubt a few researches’ results, but you can’t doubt several thousands of studies made all around the world, by a ton of different people with a lot of different interests, that come to the exact same conclusions.

Trust the consensus. Don’t fall for Bullshit Science.

You can also check “To go further” at the end of our article, you may find very interesting material.

Join us ! Facebook / Twitter

References : (1) (2)

To go further :

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming :

Scientific consensus on Wikipedia with a lot of sources, a MUST READ :

What’s a scientific theory ? :

CPTG – doTerra ; The best quality label for oils ?

CPTG’s promotion found on Google Image (1)

Definitions :

doTerra : MLM company selling -mostly- essential oils.
MLM : multi-level marketing.
CPTG :Certified Pure Tested Grade” (3) or “Certified Pure Therapeutic Grade” (2) (4). Seems like doTerre themselves aren’t sure about their own label.
Pure : without pesticides, herbicides or any kind of additives.
Therapeutic : curative, that heals.


For those who want a quick answer, doTerra is using its own quality label, “CPTG“, claiming it is way better than any kind of national / international test about oils.
Their label being their own, the objectivity is questionnable.
They claim that “multiple” labs are verifying the CPTG but we can easily find out there’s only one that does : “APRC“, Aromatic Plant Research Center.
APRC is led by “scientists” who are heavily linked to doTerra. doTerra is also the CLIENT of the APRC, which means the lab is paid by the company to “test” their products… Questionnable again.
APRC has been founded by the same law group used by doTerra for their legal mark deposits or even when taking other companies to court : “TraskBritt“, that’s an other link.
Even with all these links, we can find that CPTG only guarantees superficial and non factual characteristics about oils.
Also, doTerra never proved their oils to have any therapeutic effects unless from their “Third party labs” that you now know as linked to them.

If you want more details, here is the whole research.

Research :


Let’s talk about science from doTerra.

They’re using it for their label CPTG. But, what is CPTG ?


doTerra says that CPTG is “Certified Pure Therapeutic Grade” or “Certified Pure Tested Grade” (seems like it depends on their mood). This label is owned by them and is supposed to verify their oil quality with scientific proofs.

So basically they are using their own label to prove that their oils are “better” than any other oil in the market…

But hey, look, it’s cool, they say CPTG is tested by “Third parties labs”

Even before checking those labs, let’s see what guarantees this label

We are not going to stop on their scientific tests as our dear Author isn’t qualified to check if it’s a correct way to do it or not. (we’re still open to editing the post if someone is able to provide us informations about it)

Here is one of the multiple explications about doTerra’s CPTG :


“CPTG Certified Pure Therapeutic Grade is a doTerra Holdings, LLC’s brand standing for norms on quality’s evaluation and materials’ control. CPTG’s testing protocols require third parties laboratories in terms of normalisation and quality’s control. CPTG protocol isn’t administrated by government or regulatory agencies and doesn’t imply any approbation on doTerra’s products.”

CPTG protocol isn’t administrated by government or regulatory agencies and doesn’t imply any approbation on doTerra’s products.

Seems a very serious science’s stuff, isn’t it ?

But again, don’t worry ! Some doTerra’s affiliated will tell you that “Without an accepted standard for essential oil quality, doTERRA created its own”


“Because organic certification varies so much from one country to another, it is not possible to acquire all essential oils under organic status. So doTERRA created their own quality control standards that exceed the industry standards for organic/therapeutic and they decided to call it CPTG  (Certified Pure Therapeutic Grade).”

So.. they didn’t pass national controls but they claim that THEIR label makes their oils way better than any other on the market.

Plus, there are honestly few reasons for a company to put themselves under more restrictions than a state would impose them, so we can even more doubt of their false kindness.

So, what else does Rebecca claim about CPTG on her website ?


Well, it seems like we can find pesticides, herbicides and even unlabeled species in their oils… We thought it was called a Certified Pure Tested Grade.

By the way, as it’s also called Certified Pure Therapeutic Grade, we can quickly talk about the fact that they use this term but its meaning can be somehow fuzzy.


It can mean “curative” or simply “having a beneficial effect”. We also recommend you to watch carefully on doTerra’s website to see some hidden mentions about this, they clearly claim to have “curative” oils but then add below their page that they’re not verified by the Food and Drug Administration. How cute from them. We will maybe write an other article to debunk their claims on their oils, complementing this one.


Well so, pure but potentially with pesticides, right ?

Maybe all this is just a misunderstanding, let’s see what really guarantees this CPTG label.

  • Compounds carefully extracted

Yeah..? So what ?

  • No fillers or artificial ingredients

Ok let me remind you something quickly…


  • Methods to ensure oils are free of any contaminants

Food domain :
United Nations Organisation for food and agriculture :
“Any substance that is not intentionally added to food, but is founded in it as a production’s residue […]”

So, what’s a contaminants ?

On the Wikipedia French page (seemed like no one translated it yet), we have a definition from the UN. It says : “Any substance that is not intentionally added to food, but is founded in it as a production’s residue”

And yes, essential oils ARE food if we refer to French Health Department, as they are dietary supplement.


Whats is a dietary supplement ?
Dietary supplement are defined as “food […]”

So, stop us if we’re wrong but, pesticides, it’s intentional or no ? We guess that no, so this point about “no contaminant” seems totally wrong.

  • Gently and skillfully distilled

Cool. What does that mean ? Did they take smooth gloves and kiss their plants ?

  • Additional rigorous quality testing

Which ones ?

  • Patiently harvested

Can you tell me more about that ? What does that change ?

  • Product is guaranteed

Cool it’s guaranteed ! Wait… What’s the guarantee about ?

We also can find this :


So they are also paying a lot of attention to :

  • Sourcing
  • Country/soil of origin
  • What is sprayed on a field or added to the soil
  • Distillation processes
  • Uses of solvents and chemicals for extraction
  • Temperature

Cool, but what’s the purpose of it ? What does that mean to “pay attention” ?

Nothing ?

All this seems to be very blurry.

Are you glad to know that your product is a CPTG certified one ?

No ?

But that’s not all. Do you member we talked about labs at the beginning ?

Let’s check these.

doTerra owns a website named “” where we can find “THESE” “THIRD PARTIES” labs. Just saying, third parties means they are not linked doTerra.


So here it is. APRC, Aromatic Plant Research Center.

Just to be sure it’s really this lab that does verification for doTerra, let’s have a test on one of their products.


Here is the page we can use to make a test.

We can see this product is CPTG certified. So now let’s download the PDF.

Images are mostly blurred because of a Copyright.
Click on it to see it in a better quality.

Click on the image to see it clearly.
Click on the image to see it clearly.

At the bottom of the document, it’s written : “The analysis of this [product] lot revealed no contaminants or adulteration.” We just hope there’s no toxic stuff inside…

So we can see it’s clearly the APRC lab that gives us the result, as it’s also them who will give doTerras’s oil the CPTG label.

We can also see that doTerra is considered as a customer, for this lab. Which means doTerra directly pays the APRC to run the tests…

Note that we came from “Third party labS” to only “third party lab”.

So let’s see if we can find more informations about this THIRD PARTY lab (already linked with money but whatever).

But hopefully, APRC’s scientists won’t be linked with doTerra.


Check up on their executive board :

  • Aaron Sorensen

This guy is clean unless that he participated to a doTerra conference. So that’s a bit of proximity between them.

  • Prabodh Satyal

May seem clean too, but the guy is in some videos at doTerra’s conferences, like Aaron Sorensen. He is also a co-author on some study with Noura Dosoky (but we’ll see her below) (list of co-authors on the right)

  • Anjanette DeCarlo

Wow she’s all clean ! Is it the beginning of trust between us and doTerra ?

  • Brian Lawrence

No Brian ! We had faith !

Here is Brian who is a Scientific Advisor for doTerra PLUS a Senior Research Scientist for APRC lab.

Well, seems like we can throw the “Third Party” part, right ?

  • William Setzer

William, you’re even worst. This is at the end of one of your “scientific” study.

“This work was carried out as part of the activities of the Aromatic Plant Research Center. (APRC, The authors are grateful to dōTERRA International ( for financial support of the APRC.”

By the way its done with “Noura Dosoky”, and here she is :

  • Noura Dosoky

We have a great combo ! She made studies financed by doTerra FOR the APRC and she is doing some livestreams with the Founding Executive Sales & Marketing of doTerra.
Oh dear objectivity, where did you go ?


That’s funny because this Internet website also says that APRC is a third party lab and that no scientist is linked to doTerra.

We’re on the end of the subject. We’ll now just throw some facts and you’ll just make yourself an opinion of what you see.


We can see that APRC was registered by the APRC itself. Nothing much interesting here. But we can see who was the attorney.

It’s Krista Weber Powell, she works for TraskBritt which seem to be a lawyer’s office.

Can you guess for who she’s working too ?

Yup. doTerra. She registered all (or almost) their trademarks and she was their attorney for their court attacks.

If you’re curious, I’m giving you at the end of the article three sites to see it yourself. (6) (7) (8)

We can also quickly see that a guy named Mark A. Wolfert, working for TaskBritt, is also a Founding Executive and General Counsel for doTerra (


To end all this, doTerra owns a charity association : HealingHands.

I have nothing more to say about it. Some of you will understand what it could mean.

So here we are :

CPTG’s label from doTerra : BULLSHIT SCIENCE.

You can also check “To go further” at the end of our article, you may find very interesting material.

Join us ! Facebook / Twitter

References : (1) (2) => (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

To go further :

Scientific answer to essential oils :

Charity association and fiscal fraud :

Laundering money with public utility association :é-pub

Why does your mom love alternative medicine :

Frankincense oil and doTerra’s sourcing :

Appeal to nature

“If it’s natural/organic, it’s good. If it’s chemical/synthetic, it’s bad”

You already heard that.

Let’s do this very quickly.

“If it’s natural/organic, it’s good” : In this sentence, we can define good as an ethnocentrism, so we will accept it as “good for survival or comfort of any human kind” and we can also define “natural/organic” as “anything that is untouched from Humanity”

With these two definitions, we can easily counter this argument : diseases are natural. It’s not good for you.

“If it’s chemical/synthetic, it’s bad” : “Chemical/synthetic”, in this sentence, is referenced as the opposite of “natural”.
Firstly, it’s highly probable that nothing remains untouched by Humanity. (1)
Secondly, both synthetic and natural chemicals can be bad or good.
Thirdly, most of the time, a synthetic chemical is exactly the same as a natural chemical (2)

It’s a very common sophism, that you can now avoid and counter.

Join us ! Facebook / Twitter

References – by DirtyBiology [Léo Grasset] (1) – by Dorea Reeser (2)

To go further :

Correlation or causality ?

Definitions :

Correlation :
Statistical tool used to measure the strength of a relationship between two (or more) variables.

A correlation can be :
– a coincidence.
Example : antibiotic consumption rate in United States correlated with violence in Bulgaria.

– caused by an other variable :
Examples :
– A and B are both affected by C.
– excellent grades in High school (A) and excellent grades in University (B) are both affected by continuously hard working (C).

– a negative correlation :
Example :
– when A increases then B decreases.

– a positive correlation :
Example :
– when A increases then B increases.

Causality :
Relation between a cause and it’s effect.
Examples :
– A causes B.
– On Earth, dropping an object (A) causes it to fall (B).

Sophism :

We often say “correlation doesn’t imply causality“, which means that most of correlations won’t be a cause-effect matter, and so, won’t imply a causality.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is very common sophism in which a correlation is mistook as a causality, this leads to huge mistakes in thinking and establishing conclusion.
It can be also used as a manipulation, “correlation” or “causality” have to be used very carefully.
A correlation is only a statistical tool and is not useful as an argument, but, it’s always very interesting to study its possible causal link as it could lead to an interesting finding, and then, to an interesting argument.

Note : A causality WILL imply a correlation, in any case.

More : Find on this website funny correlations that will show you how a correlation differs from any cause-effect relation, such as : “US spending on science, space and technology” correlates with “suicide by hanging, strangulation and suffocation”
It also shows how easily graphics can be manipulated to make you believe that two things that have NOTHING in common can be related.

Join us ! Facebook / Twitter

The Mighty Moon : How a big rock can affect you ?

Spoiler : it can’t.

BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph… How medias can spread bullshit science :

Moon is related to a lot of potential effects on : fertility, birth rate, blood loss, mental illness, epilepsy, law and order, trafic fatalities, politics, stock market, sleep quality, plants… (1)

All those potential effects have never been proved as existing. Some of them didn’t even have any correlation with the moon at all.

But why do people still believe in something false ?
The answer could be as simple as : they just believe.

In Science, we’re putting a lot of effort to not believe but to prove, which is something that requires time and effort. Obviously, it’s easier to just listen to someone that could potentially know what you want to know and that will provide you information after an effort of research and verification.

Basically, the best information source is supposed to be a media, such as BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph and many others who are journalists.

A journalist has a big responsibility : to provide information.

But here we have a problem, medias such as those we cited before are read by a lot of people who will accept any article as a certified truth. Even more when it’s supposed to be “scientific”… They’re journalists after all, they know what they’re talking about… No ?

Well… No.

Here is what we can find on BBC :

In 1998, a three-month psychological study of 1,200 inmates at Armley jail in Leeds discovered a rise in violent incidents during the days either side of a full moon.

BBC, Tuesday, 5 June 2007. (2)

Here is what we can find on The Telegraph :

A three-month psychological study of 1,200 inmates at Armley jail in Leeds in 1998 showed a rise in violent incidents in the days either side of a full moon.

The Telegraph, 06 Jun 2007. (3)

And on The Guardian :

In 1998, a three-month psychological study of 1,200 inmates at Armley jail in Leeds discovered a rise in violent incidents during the days on either side of a full moon.

The Guardian, 05 Jun 2007. (4)

All those articles are about a police research and the evidence from a man who THINKS because of his “19 years experience in police” that there is a correlation between Full Moon and rise in violence.
Firstly, we’re talking about a correlation, not a causality.
Secondly, we’re talking about POLICE officers, not researchers.
Thirdly, you can see there’s no effort put in those articles, it’s just a copy-paste.
And fourthly, we have no proof of their potential “correlation”, it’s purely a statement without any kind of material to prove its truthfulness.

The Guardian is the only one to say that there’s no significant proof of violence rise during the full moon… But it is said at the end of their article and after the “scientific proof” quote mentioned above.
The Telegraph and BBC add other “studies”, as if it was proving anything.

Obviously, there’s no web link to any of those studies nor even a name mentioned nor any reference anywhere on those articles.
So let’s see where we can also find this “reference”.

We can find it in “Real Monsters, Gruesome Critters, and Beasts from the Darkside” (5) or “Psychosis in the Family: The Journey of a Transpersonal Psychotherapist and a mother” (6) or “Beware of False Religions & Pagan Traditions Part 2, Partie 2” (7) or “The Werewolf Book: The Encyclopedia of Shape-Shifting Beings” (8) and probably in other documents.

So this reference seems to be everywhere, right ? Then, it must be true, it must exist.
Well… If it does, it’s nowhere on Internet. As it seems that The Guardian was the reference for other journalists and they never mentioned their sources, it looks like a dead end for this information.
How strange…

Obviously, if you’re interested in Moon’s effects but too open to the idea, you’ll find yourselves on those kind of beautiful websites (9) where we will throw at you as much fake science and fake proofs as possible.
Everyone must be careful and search for sources, even more when you’re making yourself an idea and even MORE if you think the statement you read is true.

Never trust “one study shows [something]”. Because it will always be one study against potentially a hundred that will say exactly the opposite. Stay skeptical.

But if you’re curious and still not convinced about how FALSE those effects are, you’re welcome here :

So here we are, conclusion ?

The moon has effect on you : BULLSHIT SCIENCE.

Join us ! Facebook / Twitter

References :