Jan 25 2010

Mike Adams Takes On “Skeptics”

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Mike Adams Takes On “Skeptics””.

Share

56 responses so far

56 Responses to “Mike Adams Takes On “Skeptics””

  1. Marshallon 25 Jan 2010 at 1:44 am

    I saw this off of Pharyngula. I originally posted to all of the members who were praising the author that they were the biggest group of idiots I’ve seen, and that I couldn’t believe that they could think ANY group of people could believe that crap (I don’t even think any religion preaches that pregnancy is a disease). But I didn’t even want to be associated with such a website, so I unregistered.

  2. johncon 25 Jan 2010 at 2:06 am

    He sounds like a nutcase with an anti skeptic axe to grind, and it seems the community have gotten to him in a big way which is great.

    Why did you go and have to ruin it by mentioning fluoridation?

    Calcium fluoride is fine, and is present in many foods we eat, the shit they put in the water supply (sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid) is totally unnecessary and it’s safety and efficacy is questionable.

    Baby and bathwater once again disposed of in a similar fashion…

  3. cfeaganson 25 Jan 2010 at 2:17 am

    Finally! It was well worth the wait :-)

    You elucidated things about this guy that I wasn’t aware of from the article on his site.

    He’s a bigger creep than I initially thought!

  4. OnceWasLoston 25 Jan 2010 at 2:40 am

    For what it’s worth, it should be noted that this is just the nomination phase of the shorty awards. After this, the top 6 nominees in each category get voted on again, then the winner gets a free trip to New York.

    Go Dr. Rachie!

  5. superdaveon 25 Jan 2010 at 3:18 am

    this rant makes so little sense and has such venomous hatred in it i think even a lot of pro alternative medicine people would take issue. some of those claims go past wrong and enter into crazy territory.

  6. KathyOon 25 Jan 2010 at 4:21 am

    I’d be interested to know how many people who are believers in alt med. and followers of Adams would read his frothing lunacy and say, “wow, I didn’t realize skeptics were so ridiculous and evil,” and how many are going, “hey, wait a minute….that doesn’t sound right.”

    As Superdave suggests, is it possible that Adams’ rant will turn his own people into skeptics?

  7. eiskrystalon 25 Jan 2010 at 5:19 am

    As Superdave suggests, is it possible that Adams’ rant will turn his own people into skeptics?

    Probably. The guy is one burning goat short of a herd. I would be surprised if many people take him seriously.

  8. sonicon 25 Jan 2010 at 5:35 am

    Adams claims-
    “so I did a little research and pulled this information from various “skeptic” websites.”

    Yet I couldn’t see any links to or mentions of the websites he visited.

    He trys to make a number of points and makes none. (I did get the impression that he is upset…)

  9. rulesandwisdomon 25 Jan 2010 at 5:40 am

    I’m really glad to see Steve’s article on this. I was intrigued by a headline about the ‘Swine Flu Hoax’ yesterday, and was given my first experience of the worthless site that is NaturalNews. Apparently Google are now using NaturalNews.com as one of their feeds for Google News – I’ve contacted Google and ask them to remove the site because the site is “biased/contains offensive content” (their categorisation). If anyone sees ‘articles’ from NaturalNews.com appearing on Google News, I encourage them to do the same:

    http://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/request.py?contact_type=report_an_issue

    The fact that NaturalNews is also a massive online store for ‘natural’ and ‘alternative’ medicine, combined with the ridiculous claims and conjecture, should hopefully result in the site being removed.

    Just as I was losing faith in humanity, Steve publishes an article which expresses exactly how I was feeling! Great work.

  10. Marius Vanderlubbeon 25 Jan 2010 at 6:33 am

    @johnc
    “Calcium fluoride is fine, and is present in many foods we eat, the shit they put in the water supply (sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid) is totally unnecessary and it’s safety and efficacy is questionable.”

    In that case, I put the question that I put to all anti-fluoridationistas.
    Where are all the adversely affected (by artificial fluoridation) people? Wouldn’t you expect to see a spike in the numbers corresponding with the introduction of art. fluoridation?

    Burden of proof. Where is your evidence?

  11. whatislogicon 25 Jan 2010 at 6:39 am

    Mike definitely has an axe to grind with skeptics. Skeptics are having a positive impact against his lunacy. Also sounds like the guy needs to laid in my opinion.

  12. SteveNon 25 Jan 2010 at 8:13 am

    Excellent rebuttal, Steve. It’s a pity that very few of Adam’s followers will ever read it. It would give all but the most fervent of believers pause for thought, I expect.

  13. Stylus Happenstanceon 25 Jan 2010 at 9:06 am

    I’d heard of Natural News, of course, but not Mike Adams specifically until the Shorty awards started. The more i read about him, the more I’m convinced that he’s not a true believer.

  14. johncon 25 Jan 2010 at 9:40 am

    @Marius Vanderlubbe

    Prove what? I said unnecessary and questionable.

    The burden of proof lies with those who believe it’s safe and effective, as it does with any substance, especially if it’s a medicine or nutrient administered via our water supply.

    If I wanted to put something in your water you’d expect the same I’m sure.

  15. Justin L.on 25 Jan 2010 at 10:20 am

    I have to say Adams gave a spot on description of my beliefs, but he left out the part about eating a baby for breakfast every morning in order to control the surplus population.

  16. SquirrelEliteon 25 Jan 2010 at 10:29 am

    johnc,

    For starters, I went to the CDC web site on fluoridation.

    http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs.htm

    There I found the following tidbits:

    “Nearly all water on earth contains naturally occurring fluoride at levels below, equal to, or above those used in community water fluoridation. Investigation of the decay preventing effects of naturally occurring fluoride in water led to the start of community water fluoridation in 1945.”

    So, most drinking water already contains fluoride, anyway. Fluoridation of public drinking water mainly serves to standardize this concentration at a level which has been determined to be safe and effective. (Sort of like pharmacognosic drugs!)

    There was one note about a possible concern that is being studied:

    “A study published by Bassin and colleagues suggests an association between drinking fluoridated water and osteosarcoma in adolescent males. The findings from a larger study on this topic, conducted by the same institution, are expected soon.”

    We will have to wait and see on that. However, the consensus remains:

    ” The safety of fluoride in drinking water at levels recommended for preventing tooth decay has been affirmed by numerous scientific and professional groups.

    Scientists have found a lack of evidence to show an association between water fluoridation and a negative impact on people, plants, or animals.”

    If you have evidence that contradicts these statements, the onus is on you to cite that evidence and provide a link for our benefit. You might want to forward your concerns to the CDC and the EPA.

    In other words, the ball is in your court.

  17. Benjaminoon 25 Jan 2010 at 11:25 am

    @SquirrelElite & @Marius Vanderlubbe

    Watch The Senior Vice President of the EPA Headquarters Union discusses the dangers of fluoride in our drinking water
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLgKeHOgneQ

    And checkout this series of articles on “The (Skeptic’s) Health Journal Club” which cite multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies.
    Part 1 – http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2009/11/water-fluoridation-part-i.html
    Part 2 – http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2009/11/water-fluoridation-part-ii.html
    Part 3 – http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2009/11/water-fluoridation-part-iii.html

  18. banyanon 25 Jan 2010 at 11:39 am

    “Thanks for the admission, magic man.” Good stuff!

    I get the impression that he thinks that only absolute beliefs are possible. Why does he think that skeptics believe all GM food is safe? Why, because he believes that all GM food is unsafe, and we disagree. Either you’re with us or against us, right? Same with vaccines, and even nutrients; since we don’t think they’re literally miraculous, we must think they’re “inert.”

    I’m sure dealing in absolutes saves him a lot of cognitive time and energy, but it’s not doing his readers any favors.

  19. Steven Novellaon 25 Jan 2010 at 11:54 am

    banyan,

    You are exactly right, and that is a point I should have made myself – as some of my colleagues have made previously (I think I first heard this observation from Mark Crislip). CAM proponents seems to lack any tolerance of nuance or ambiguity. They live in a black-and-white world. If we defend the efficacy of vaccines – they we believe that ONLY vaccines work, that ALL vaccines are safe, that you can use UNLIMITED vaccines without fear, etc.

    Adams’ rant is an excellent example of this.

  20. Michelle Bon 25 Jan 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Stuff that Adams called magical are wonderful, as is science-based medicine.

    Magic is illusion. Maybe being an magician of the caliber of a Randy is too difficult for Adams so instead he plies his crass inanity.

  21. Dave Kahnon 25 Jan 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Apart from confirming the importance of magic in his world view Mike Adams’ follow up reveals that he doesn’t grasp basic chemistry. “Water is made up of two gases, each of which is a combustible fuel on its own,” he asserts. Does he understand the difference between a compound and a mixture, and does he understand the properties of hydrogen and oxygen?

    Water is not “made up of two gases” but is a compound of oxygen and hydrogen. In elemental form these are gaseous above certain temperatures; in compound with each other they are water which is also gaseous above a certain temerature. Oxygen of course supports combustion but is not itself combustible. The various properties of water that Adams describes as magical are indeed remarkable but are well understood in scientific terms. No magic required.

  22. gdjsky01on 25 Jan 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Thanks Doctor, this is going to be my new signature quote, “Skepticism is not a set of beliefs, it is a set of methods for asking questions about reality. ”

    Great post. Love your work. Run for office. :)

  23. canadiaon 25 Jan 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Unbelievable!

    How people like this can exist in a world so bedecked with the wonders of science and reason is something that will never cease to amaze me.

    It is a great comfort to me that people like you (steven) are taking the battle to these people. They are a serious threat to everything this species has built.

  24. CWon 25 Jan 2010 at 1:38 pm

    With a lot of kids drinking filtered/bottled water, I wonder if there will be an increase in tooth/gum disease? And whether we’ll see a noticeable decrease in ailments that people think flouridation is causing? I hope scientists are studying this.

  25. canadiaon 25 Jan 2010 at 1:46 pm

    as posted on his article page…

    Mike, after reading your post I just had to register and leave a comment. You are unbelievable! That someone as superstitious and uneducated can actually use a computer to post your thoughts is amazing! I can only hope that eventually improving science education and critical thinking will teach the new generations to ignore quacks and mystics like you. Clearly much of the current generation is hopeless, but there’s hope. Furthermore, and wonderfully so, natural selection will eventually solve what education cannot. All your disciples, with their reliance on unproven magical alternative treatments, will have a much high death rate, because it just doesn’t work. Their vaccinated children will die of measles more often, their vaccinated teenagers will struggle with herpes. Slowly but surely they will come to accept the ineffectiveness of shamanistic quackery, or they will die. Eventually whatever genetics lead to such backward thinking will be weeded out of the gene pool. Till then, enjoy that snake oil!

  26. RickKon 25 Jan 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Marshall, registering and commenting on Mike Adams’s site will get you nowhere. He filters out almost all negative comments, and likes to ban people permanently if they say anything he doesn’t like.

    I don’t know how someone like Mike Adams lives with such personal dishonesty. Mike Adams viciously suppresses any dissenting opinions on his site. Why?

    Because he’s SELLING something. The “skeptics” he complains about – the hosts of Neurologica, Pharyngula, Respectful Insolence, etc. are not selling products from their websites (other than the occasional t-shirt with an octopus on it). So the skeptical websites are open to free expression of idea – whether in agreement or disagreement with the hosts.

    Not so on Mike’s site. He FEARS truth, because it will cut into his product sales. And all those sheep in the comments section (if they are in fact real people, and not just fabricated as a marketing gimmick) have completely missed the fact that they’re being conned by a salesman.

    What a sad little corner of humanity is represented on that site. I’d like to see his nonsense laughed at in mainstream media, but I fear the attention would only improve his sales.

  27. rrpostalon 25 Jan 2010 at 3:31 pm

    @Benjamino

    If that’s the best you can do I’m still unconvinced. The link you give (which also has the video you link to) is minor sparsely used blog by an unnamed source. The “skeptical” site also includes a video about vaccine complicity with autism, BRP scare, natural vitamin ads and other wonderful non-skeptical things. The video was from a union VP while with a misleading title. He did not represent the EPA, rather government employees. This doesn’t invalidate them. I’m one too. It’s just misleading. I had to dig a bit to find some decent claims from noted sources.The best evidence I found were the editorials by Dr Burgstahler, whose office happens to be two blocks from where I live. But they are less than recent.

    Check out the root directories for more info.

    [url]http://www.fluoride-journal.com/03-36-2/362-079.pdf[/url]

    For some reason Medline keeps rejecting this journal

    [url]http://www.fluorideresearch.org/394/files/FJ2006_v39_n4_p252-254.pdf[/url]

  28. Charlie Youngon 25 Jan 2010 at 3:35 pm

    Being a dentist, I couldn’t let a minor grammatical error pass: fluoride is safe and effective for the prevention of tooth decay not “preventive tooth decay.”

    Other than that minor quibble, I strongly back you in you quest to have reason return to the public discourse. Those absolute, inflammatory statements Mike makes are meant to strengthen his position with his minions but also, unfortunately, give him a soapbox on which to promote his dubious claims to an unsuspecting public.

  29. skepticaton 25 Jan 2010 at 3:38 pm

    Mike Adams appears to be deranged. Thanks for a superb post.

    I liked what you said about natural childbirth. I’m a skeptic who opted for a home delivery for my second child. I had the full support of my doctors and community midwives because I had attended all ante-natal checks and there were no contra indications. I had an evidence-based delivery.

  30. Enzoon 25 Jan 2010 at 4:13 pm

    “His post is the equivalent of dropping a crudely fashioned incendiary device onto a strawman factory of his own making.”

    OOOOHHHHHH

    I don’t normally congest the Comments section by re-quoting lines that amuse me…But that was hilarious. I believe we call that a nerd snap.

    I wish I could argue with Mr. Adams in front of some of my less skeptically minded friends. He is so over-the-top that he ends up encouraging skepticism about his own obnoxious claims.

    Well done.

  31. provaxmomon 25 Jan 2010 at 7:04 pm

    I like his rant. If you pick it apart, you can tell he rarely misses a day of clicking on all of your blogs and reading them. The thought of him, at home at his computer, checking all of your blogs on his bookmarks while his blood pressure goes up (and up and up since he undoubtedly wouldn’t take a medication for it)….the vision of all that makes me smile. You all obviously drive him nuts.

  32. katoon 25 Jan 2010 at 8:38 pm

    Regarding the linked article on organic food nutrients, I don’t think I was ever under the impression that organic food had more nutrients, but rather less Bad Stuff. Are there any studies comparing levels of Bad Stuff for conventional vs organic?

  33. tmac57on 25 Jan 2010 at 9:33 pm

    Skeptics believe that Mike Adams is full of “blog-fodder!!!

  34. zoe237on 25 Jan 2010 at 10:16 pm

    Thanks for this Dr. Novella. I sure wish you spoke for all skeptics.

    The black and white world thing is a big problem, particularly in science education.

  35. Enzoon 25 Jan 2010 at 10:57 pm

    @kato

    Define “bad stuff.” The difference between organic farmed food and traditionally farmed is the exclusion of soluble material (that can get into crops) and the substitution of synthetic pesticides with “natural” pesticides. Organic farmers often claim that their pesticides are also more unstable and thus do not linger on the crops as long, but this is not really accurate — not to mention that some “natural” pesticides have been shown to cause harm or prove insufficient at preventing things like fungal growth. Overall there are as many as twenty treatments crops are subjected to, organic or not. You have to prevent bugs and microbes in one way or another.

    A quick Google Scholar or PubMed search for organic farming pesticides or “organic and conventional farming” will allow you to read a lot on the subject, which I believe is fairly straightforward.

    It’s also interesting to note that organic farming is more expensive, requires more land and generally produces smaller crop volume. The health risk of using traditional vs. organically grown are miniscule if at all different. The argument rages on about nutrients but it seems that there are tradeoffs on both sides.

  36. SquirrelEliteon 26 Jan 2010 at 12:48 am

    @rrpostal,

    I had similar thoughts on Benjamino’s links when I looked at them, but didn’t have time to post a response.

  37. eiskrystalon 26 Jan 2010 at 4:35 am

    It’s also interesting to note that organic farming is more expensive, requires more land and generally produces smaller crop volume.

    Scale probably matters. Pesticides are necessary for large industrial type farms, but probably aren’t cost effective for smaller ones. There is also run-off into the environment, cost of the pesticides/fertilizer etc… to consider.

    It would be perfectly possible to view organic food as “normal”, stable farm production and see the artifically increased yields as using a large excess energy and chemicals in order to have small gains in production.

  38. katoon 26 Jan 2010 at 8:48 am

    @Enzo: “Bad Stuff” refers to anything added to the process that you wouldn’t eat directly such as pesticides and fertilizers. As well, I suppose anything like a fungus or microbes that should have been cleansed.

  39. Al at OutboundMusicon 26 Jan 2010 at 12:37 pm

    Organic vs. “Bad Things”: I assume here that we’re also talking about meat, dairy and poultry products. If that’s the case then the “Bad Things” would include the Omega-6s we get from the corporate products as opposed to the more healthy Omega-3s from Organic farms. Here’s a link to an interest lecture on the subject at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston; http://www3.mdanderson.org/streams/MDACCFlvPlayer2.html?xml=integrativeMed%2Fconfig%2FAnticancer_cfg

  40. catgirlon 26 Jan 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis.

    I absolutely hate guys like this who make this claim. Pregnancy isn’t a disease, but it sure as hell has a lot more symptoms than most common diseases. If there were a disease as common as pregnancy that caused daily vomiting that lasts for months and medications for symptom relief were heavily restricted, it would be an epidemic. And childbirth may not be a “crisis”, but it is certainly life-threatening (although less so now, specifically because of modern medicine). Babies are great, but the method of getting one is worse than any disease I’ve ever had.

  41. Matt Novackon 26 Jan 2010 at 1:26 pm

    @kato & @eiskrystal

    I recommend listening to Skeptoid podcast #166 “Organic vs Conventional Agriculture” (transcript here: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4166).

    It’s a good overview of the differences between the two, and Dunning even goes into detail about fertilizers:

    “The biggest misconception is that organic farming does not use fertilizer, herbicides, or pesticides. Of course it does. Fertilizer is essentially chemical nutrient, and the organic version delivers exactly the same chemical load as the synthetic. It has to, otherwise it wouldn’t function.”

  42. Benjaminoon 26 Jan 2010 at 1:57 pm

    @rrpostal

    The blog source is named as ‘Paul D Maher, MD MPH’ formally of the FDA.
    (You can find that and more info under the heading ‘About Me’ in the right hand column of any page in the blog)

    Re: The video. The union VP does represents employees of the EPA. He clearly states this in the first 30 seconds on the video.

    Thank you for the link http://www.fluoride-journal.com/03-36-2/362-079.pdf (As an aside both it and the first blog post I linked to in my first post reference the same Chinese study.)

    While I may not have convinced you maybe the last sentence of that PDF should a least give you pause for thought.

    “In short, despite growing evidence of serious neurotoxicity
    for both fluoride and lead,1-6,11 U.S. safety standards for fluoride in water have been moving in the opposite direction to those for lead in blood. From a scientific standpoint, this reversal is very difficult to understand or to justify.”

    p.s. when you mentioned the “BRP scare” were you meaning BPA? If so this article might be of interest
    http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/34532034.html

    An extract:
    “The newspaper had the containers of 10 items tested in a lab – products that were heated in a microwave or conventional oven. Bisphenol A, or BPA, was found to be leaching from all of them.

    The amounts detected were at levels that scientists have found cause neurological and developmental damage in laboratory animals. The problems include genital defects, behavioral changes and abnormal development of mammary glands. The changes to the mammary glands were identical to those observed in women at higher risk for breast cancer.”

  43. skeptologicon 26 Jan 2010 at 2:09 pm

    I’ll tell you what this skeptic believes. I believe that watching Dr. Novella take down idiots like Mike Adams is a thing of beauty. What a crank, he must be related to Neil Adams.

  44. SkullVodkaon 26 Jan 2010 at 8:36 pm

    Who would be dumb enough to spout such obvious lies in a forum where it is saved and archived for all to see and scrutinize for the rest of eternity. This is nothing that could ever be lived down, or be forgotten. What happens on the internet stays on the internet. What an unbelievable douche bag. And I do mean unbelievable in every sense of the word. Wow, just wow.

  45. tl;dron 27 Jan 2010 at 12:12 pm

    I just read this article now.

    Dr. Dunlop is actually in 2nd place, ~1000 votes behind Mercola for the Shorty #health award. IIRC, when Mercola was not in the lead he said, “Now I could care LESS about this stupid Twitter award”

    Yet now he “urgently needs your voice and vote.” It’s a matter of health freedoms!!11! Lulz.

  46. wichitarickon 27 Jan 2010 at 4:19 pm

    While I cannot address ALL of these views from either side I can show very real cases of friends dieing after dropping what their medical doctors were telling them and using “alternative” methods.(R.I.P.)
    My way of referring to a lot of the material that “Mr Adams” is using I call the “DUH” factor. It is really that simple to do a little reading/research and draw your conclusion instead of believing what is screamed from the pulpit RC.

  47. Tom Cowardon 29 Jan 2010 at 7:51 pm

    Interesting post. Concerning ‘organic’ foods: I tend to prefer them not because they are more nutritious (I know that they generally are not) or that they taste better (sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t) than non-organic, but rather because the way they are produced is generally less burdensome on the ecosystem. Also, meat, milk and eggs produced by ‘organic’ methods tend to involve less pain and suffering to the animals involved.

  48. Chicago Skepticon 30 Jan 2010 at 8:37 pm

    How does Mr. Adams – having such an non-scientific mindset – expect the “miraculous properties” of water to be discovered? I am sure his answer would be quite informing.

  49. Eon 31 Jan 2010 at 10:14 am

    One surprising thing I recently learned about this Mike Adams is that he lives in Ecuador. Guess that’s so he can be freer to carry out his health freedom nonsense and be freer to sell tourist getaways to his new neighborhood – the “Valley of Longevity.”

    Too bad that escape, oops I mean move, to Ecuador didn’t work out so well for “herbal formulator,” Greg Caton. And if anyone’s interested in hearing a good one, listen to podcast “Health ranger report #84.” It’s short, sweet and amusingly chock full of everything from how the mean old FDA has apparently gone global…to Mike Adams using phrases like “chemical holocaust.”

    Oh yeah, and in another “Health Ranger report” podcast, Mike Adams inadvertently reveals how slick these guys really are when he explains that he doesn’t sell herbs, supplements or remedies; but only sells books with information about herbs, supplements or remedies (Greg Caton got apprehended because he apparently continued to sell the actual items).

    The only award I hope Joseph Mercola wins is a good long sentence and a fancy orange jumpsuit.

  50. daniel.oliveiraon 01 Feb 2010 at 10:00 am

    Steve,

    Thanks for another excellent post!
    Your rebuttal is an good example of why one should stay tuned on Neurologica on a frequent basis.
    Skepticism scores again!

    Steve rocks, Adams “cranks”!

  51. Woofon 06 Feb 2010 at 4:35 am

    You can get the full content of any article on the Health Ranger Moronathon site by clicking on the “Printable Version” button, no registration required.

    Direct URL in this case is http://www.naturalnews.com/z028012_skeptics_medicine.html

  52. [...] the public statements made by Dr Steven Novella on Neurologica Blog; Now – I would not say categorically that “all vaccines are safe and effective (even if [...]

  53. [...] get your ducks in a row and try to stick with valid arguments, otherwise Dr. Novella will take a sledgehammer to your post and when he is done smashing all of the logical fallacies in it, the only thing left will be the [...]

  54. gijacklinon 20 Apr 2010 at 1:28 am

    You’re kidding me right? All you did was rant and rave about someone else ranting and raving only you obviously have been living under a rock. Western medicine is good for car accidents and that’s about it. Autism rates went up when the vaccinations went up. Chemo kills you before the cancer in most cases. Has about a 3% success rate. Do you even know anyone that went through western treatments for cancer where it didn’t come back? I don’t but know many, many people that used holistic therapies and are still here 10 years later and up. I don’t need statistics I just talk to people that have successfully cured themselves of cancer and ask them how they did it. It’s called treating the cause not the symptoms.

    You are far too intelligent to believe what you write. And I can only surmise you spent so much time on cutting up one article of Mike Adams (which really was boring of you) because you can’t truly deny that naturopathic medicine is the wave of the future. That everything Mike Adams is about is good and wholesome and right. Which means you are either being paid by big pharma or just writing from the opposite point of view cause it’s your job. No one can deny that big pharma is Satan and has no place in our world anymore.

    You should write about something that matters. If your child or wife got cancer I can’t imagine you would let them do conventional methods on them with out at least investigating alternative. For the love of God I hope you would. Western medicine is a business and they don’t care about we the people at all.

  55. ThomasTon 16 Apr 2013 at 8:16 am

    A Mike Adams reader here! I’m also also a commenter, as unfortunately many of his ‘writers’ merely repeat meaningless studies from mainstream medicine that ignore that we do have the heart disease prevention and cure, that for cancer etc. Mike rarely writes anything about health himself these days, but does write absurd political rants, which I don’t bother with.

    I got onto this site when linked to the Billy Meier et contact story, which to all mainstream scientists, neurologists etc baldly state must be a hoax. My point is that if even one single part of Meier’s story is correct, that single one taken from his 1800 pages of et contact notes, from 1000 pre-Photshop 35mm film, from cine film, from sound recordings, from the metal fragment analysis by IBM scientist M. Vogel. etc. then the phenomena exists. As a retired airline training Capt. I have had excellent UFO sightings, even carrying ‘official’ UFO report forms in our nav. bags in 1972.

    As example let’s take the Jet Propulsion Labs photo-analysis of his 35mm film,that of the Swiss Air Force Mirage Fighter in the same frame as a UFO. In the analysed photo from JPL, there is an ‘energy field’ encompassing both craft. At that time, according to Meier, the et pilot told him, via telepathy, (which can’t exist in mainstream neuroscience), that she was ‘melting down’ the gun-control of the fighter jet which had ‘locked-onto’ her craft. (My son is in neuro-science in Vienna)!

    Another example is the accurate planetary information published by Meier before nasa’s ‘discoveries’ .

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/meier/esp_meier10.htm

  56. ThomasTon 16 Apr 2013 at 9:24 pm

    Just a little follow on, hopefully being on topic for this disciussion, so not getting censored.

    Mainstream medicine is NOT squeeky clean, Doc. Steve.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/15/fda-secretly-retests-100-different-drugs-after-testing-company-admits-its-work-was-all-fraudulent/

    and , is this why you try to discredit Mike Adams and Natural News?

    http://www.naturalnews.com/023074_ghostwriting_drug_trials.html

    BTW I am 75, in robust med-free health, my last non-insurance/licence type medical was a freebie at an alternative health conference in Hawaii in 1979. You can knock the alternatives, but they are science based and many that have ‘recognised’, now fall under the radar. Others have been refused publication, to protect Industry.

    An examole. Dr Robert Good, the leader of Immunology in US, in the mid 1980s, carried out the first bone marrow transplant, had publsihed 2000+ studies and had been nominated for the Nobel Prize 3 times. Dr Good discovered the dietetic, enzymatic cure for pancreatic cancer, BUT was refused publication in ALL med. journals..

    Luckily, for those of us who live outside ‘your box,’ we have Dr H R Clark, PhD ND, who made over half a million repeatable so scientifically valid bio-resonance tests to precisely identify the causes and pathways of all cancers. It remains illegal for mainstream medicine to even mention Dr Clark, as she publsied privately. It remains legal for the time being anyway, for any person to access this info. and thus prevent 99% and to cure cancer, assuming the chemo has not yet destroyed the immune system.

    Your attack on Dr Mercola was in r5atehr poor taste, IMO. He only writes 2 articles for each biweekly newsletter, an dthey are well researched.

    Example. Eating more than 20gms of fructose daily raises uric acid levelsm, that in turm raise BP, cause fatty liver, and raise risk of gout and kidney damage. Johnson R U of CO, 2012, (in mercola.com).

    Dr Mercola has also done excellent work on grains, with grains’ lectin phenols that desensitise cell membranes to insulin, causing insulin overproduction, and grains’ leptin hormones that interfere with signalling between the liver and pancreas, disrupting insulin production. These leading to diabetes2 and obesity. Anecdotal evidence shows those on the natural, (not commercial) Palelithic high sat. fat, high animal protein and zero grain and sugar diet kick diabetes2 in a month.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.