Mike Adams adds religious nuttery to his armamentarium as he slimes Patrick Swayze posthumously

It looks like my prediction about Patrick Swayze came true. Not that it was a stretch to foresee that the Woo-meister Supreme Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com would waste no time in violating the corpse of Patrick Swayze before he was even cold by using Swayze’s death as an excuse to repeat once again his oft-repeated misinformation and lies about chemotherapy and “natural” therapies. After all, he did it before for Tony Snow, so why not Patrick Swayze? In fact, I strongly suspect that Adams had this rant written months ago, ready and waiting for Patrick Swayze’s death. All he had to do then was to hit “post.” So that’s what he did yesterday, and what spewed forth from Adams’ servers was a nauseating series of lies entitled Patrick Swayze dead at 57 after chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer.

I didn’t originally want to spend a lot of time on this idiocy, but then it irritated me enough that I had to respond. What irritated me first was the title. Here’s a hint, Mike: Patrick Swayze died of stage IV pancreatic cancer. Got that? It wasn’t the chemotherapy that killed him. It was the cancer. Like a good alt-med maven, Adams confuses correlation with causation. Most, if not all, cancer patients have chemotherapy before the end. That does not mean the chemotherapy is what killed them. (There is the occasional exception–chemotherapy is not without risk, of course–but in general this is true.) There is a correlation, but not a causation. As usual, what Adams fails to note is that Swayze lived far longer than the average patient with stage IV pancreatic cancer, nearly 20 months versus a median survival of less than six months. True, given how horrific pancreatic cancer is, the chemotherapy that Swayze underwent probably only modestly prolonged his life, but for Adams to acknowledge that Swayze actually did quite well, at least as well as one can expect from a patient with the disease that he had, would undermine his belief that all chemotherapy is evil poison that does no good. If you want to get an idea to what ridiculous extreme Adams takes confusing correlation with causation, look at the pictures and the captions that he displays:


Truly, the despicable, willful stupid. It burns. In fact, there’s so much stupid there that I can only cherry pick some of the most egregiously nasty misinformation and lies. To do more would risk the proverbial massive wave of neuronal apoptosis from the anti-reason waves emanating from my computer screen every time I look at Mike Adams’ website.

After a string of paragraphs claiming that “the cancer industry” has killed untold celebrities and lamenting how Swayze chose chemotherapy over “natural” cures, Adams gets to the meat of his claims:

Of course, the cancer industry takes no responsibility for his death. Drug companies and cancer docs never accept responsibility for the way their poisonous treatments harm (and often kill) many fine people.

Had Patrick Swayze’s pancreatic cancer gone away, doctors would have hailed chemotherapy as the genius treatment that saved Swayze’s life. But chemotherapy has never healed anyone of cancer. Not once in the history of medicine. And when people die after being poisoned by chemotherapy, the oncologists and conventional medical doctors just shrug and say ridiculous things like, “The cancer was too far along” or “He didn’t fight it hard enough.”

Actually, it’s the quacks that Adams loves so much who usually blame the patient. Either the patient brought the disease on himself by engaging in a poor lifestyle, or the reason the “cure” didn’t work is because the patient either didn’t follow the protocol to the letter or didn’t believe in it strongly enough. Personally, I’ve never seen an oncologist blame a patient’s death on that patient’s not having fought it hard enough. Oncologists just don’t talk that way.

More interesting to me is Adams’ claim that chemotherapy has never–never, he says–healed anyone of cancer, “not once in the history of medicine.”

Uh, Mike, ever hear of Lance Armstrong? He had testicular cancer. Not only that, but it was stage IV disease, with metastases to lung and brain. Guess what? Chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation cured him of his cancer, and he’s been cancer-free for 13 years. (Never deal in absolutes; you’ll end up looking the fool.) How about Daniel Hauser? His chemotherapy has rapidly eliminated his Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and he’s on track to survive his cancer and live a relatively normal life. Adams is, of course, too deluded ever to accept it, but in fact chemotherapy “cures” thousands upon thousands of patients with cancer each and every year. True, against metastatic solid tumors like pancreatic cancer, chemotherapy all too often doesn’t do much good in terms of prolonging survival (testicular cancer is an exception to that rule of thumb), but it can do quite a bit of good in terms of palliation, depending on the specific cancer.

Of course, the reason that chemotherapy doesn’t cure is obvious–if you’re an utter loon like Adams:

“I want to last until they find a cure, which means I’d better get a fire under it,” Swayze said in a highly-publicized interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters. No one apparently told Swayze the cancer industry isn’t looking for a cure. They’re looking for more business from more patients, and a genuine “cure” for cancer is flatly incompatible with the industry’s business interests.

Actually, logic, reason, and science are flatly incompatible with Mike Adams’ brain. For one thing, there are already “cures” for a number of cancers in the form of chemotherapy regimens. Adams falls for the same simplification that all too many people believe, namely that cancer is a single disease with a single cure. There is no “cure for cancer.” There likely will never be a “cure for cancer.” There are, however, cures for cancers, and there likely will be more cures for cancers. For another thing, Adams assumes that since scientific medicine can’t cure cancer 100% of the time, it never does. To him, it’s black or white, all or nothing thinking. Finally, his conspiratorial mindset prevents him from realizing that any scientist who found the cure for a killer cancer like pancreatic cancer would be instantly famous–and possibly even instantly rich. Certainly such a person could be on the track for a Nobel Prize.

Adams owes me a new irony meter for this next passage. It fried that sucker into a molten pile of quivering, sparking, sizzling goo:

Could Patrick Swayze have saved his own life with natural medicine? Absolutely. Without question. Even late-stage pancreatic cancer can be reversed (yes, reversed) with full-on naturopathic treatments involving Chinese herbal medicine, deep body detoxification that includes sweat saunas and colon cleansing, radical changes in diet from “dead” foods to “live” foods, a healthy dose of vitamin D and the daily consumption of raw anti-cancer living juices made from fresh, organic produce like cabbage, broccoli and garlic.

Many people, of course, aren’t willing to engage in these lifestyle changes in order to save their own lives, but for those who are, the results are astounding. I’ve personally met numerous people who told me their personal stories of reversing cancer (even late-stage liver cancer) by turning to natural medicine. I’ve met all kinds of people who once had cancer and are now completely cured of cancer after making the very simple lifestyle changes espoused here on NaturalNews.com. And yet, at the same time, I’ve never met a person who was cured by cancer with chemotherapy. Not a single one. Never even heard of such a person. They don’t exist. Even the cancer industry will tell you their “cure rate” is zero (because they don’t believe cancer can ever be cured).

Note how early in the article, Adams chastises oncologists for blaming the patient for “not fighting hard enough” and using that as an excuse for failure. So what does Adams do? In essence he blames patients for not being “willing to engage in these lifestyle changes in order to save their own lives.” Moreover, he clearly views those who do as the “chosen few,” who are in marked contrast with the sheeple who choose chemotherapy, whom Adams describes thusly:

The advantage with choosing chemotherapy, however, is that you don’t have to change your eating habits or think outside the box. Your doctor will tell you what to do, what pills to take, what questions to stop asking, etc., and he won’t even request that you stop eating those cancer-causing hot dogs and breakfast sausages which have been shown to significantly increase your risk of pancreatic cancer.

In other words, the “chosen few” have the will to do what needs to be done, and everyone else is too lazy or stupid to do so. To Adams, they prefer to be told what to do and are too weak to change their ways. The rest of Adams’ article follows the standard litany of ranting against big pharma and the “cancer industry” and touting “natural cures.” Adams’ favorites include the Gerson therapy, traditional Chinese medicine, “live foods,” “detoxing” and colon cleansing, and a veritable panoply of woo. That I expected. It’s standard issue Mike Adams. What I didn’t expect was this:

By the way, I don’t usually do this, but I’d like to make a comment here related to those who follow a religious practice. In almost every major world religion, it is considered a sin to desecrate your own body. Many religions consider it sinful to commit suicide, for example. In Judaism, people who mark their bodies with tattoos are considered to be in violation of the Torah (“You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord” – Leviticus 19:28), and those who commit suicide may be denied burial in a Jewish cemetery.

Under Islamic law, self-mutilation of any kind is also forbidden, including tattoos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tattooing). Under Christian principles, the body is considered a “temple” (a church) which must be honored as a reflection of God (http://www.mybodyhistemple.com).

My question to those who follow any major religion — and who may also be considering chemotherapy — is simply this: What would God think about you poisoning your God-given body with deadly chemicals?

He even threatens you with hellfire:

That’s why chemotherapy isn’t just bad for your immune system and bad for your body; it’s also bad for your soul. Whether you believe in the Pearly Gates or some other version of an afterlife, there’s no question that showing up on Judgment Day after having died from chemotherapy is not a comfortable episode of spiritual scrutiny. If God, in a booming voice, asks, “I gave you a perfect body, in my own image. What did you choose to do with it?” And if you answer, “Well, I smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, I swore off all the natural medicine that you provided us, and I allowed my body temple to be injected and destroyed with man-made toxic chemicals that killed me and brought me here,” chances are you’re not going to find yourself in God’s favor.

Wow. Just wow. If you don’t follow Adams’ advice, God is going to send you straight to hell when you die. Why? Because you contaminated the purity of your precious bodily fluids, that’s why! I always thought that Poe’s law meant that it’s difficult to tell the difference between fundamentalism and a parody of fundamentalism, but maybe that’s wrong. Maybe POE stands for purity of essence. (The movie allusion will come to you eventually.) How loony is that? Well, it is Mike Adams we’re talking about here. Indeed, he even invokes the specter of atheistic doctors:

Then again, most conventional cancer doctors don’t believe in God anyway. They believe in chemicals. At least, they believe in them for YOU, but not necessarily for themselves. Most oncologist, it turns out, would never subject themselves to chemotherapy.

Holy crap! It’s those evil atheistic doctors pushing chemotherapy that are at the root of all medical evil, don’tcha know? Of course, Adams is utterly ignorant. In fact, there’s good evidence that physicians are at least as religious as a group as the general population and, in fact, may even be more religious. That’s part of the reason why they seem to be so easily duped by religious pseudoscience like “intelligent design creationism.” Everybody’s favorite creationist neurosurgeon comes to mind as a sterling example.

Also, the oft-parroted claim that the vast majority of oncologists would never subject themselves to chemotherapy is, of course, one of those “unsinkable rubber duck” myths of the alt-med movement (apologies to the great James Randi). It’s utter nonsense, an urban myth based on a small study that was presented over 20 years ago at a meeting and never published in a peer reviewed journal–and that only dealt with one chemtherapy agent for one disease. Yet Adams repeats the lie yet again, and the legend lives on, to be repeated on alt-med site after alt-med site, immune to evidence and oblivious to its rather inauspicious origin. Not that he cares. It fits his world view; so it must be true.

I have a different take on the matter of whether God, if he exists, would want you to let doctors treat you with chemotherapy if you were ever unfortunate enough to develop cancer. If you believe in God, ask yourself: Why would God give humans this amazing ability to reason and investigate the world through science, an ability that has lead to remarkable treatments for once incurable diseases if he didn’t want you to use them? That’s what wouldn’t make sense.

In a way, although it was one of the most unethical clinical trials of the last 50 years, easily as unethical as the Tuskegee syphilis study, I am glad that the results of the study of the Gonzalez protocol for pancreatic cancer were revealed recently. That is exactly the sort of quackery that Mike Adams pushes, driven by the same pseudoscience that he repeats over and over. Now that Gonzalez has responded, I might have to take a look into the mind of a different woo lover than Adams, one who is considered almost respectable.

Yes, I think I may do that tomorrow.