Categories
Cancer Medicine Politics Quackery

Why I despise Mike Adams: Blaming Beau Biden’s cancer on chemotherapy and glyphosate

I’ve been following Mike Adams a long time, going back to 2007 and even before. It’s difficult to find anyone who can pack more pseudoscience, conspiracy mongering, and outright hateful bile into an article when he has a mind to do so. I’ve documented this tendency many times, so many times that, each time I write about one of his rants, I tell myself it’ll be the last time. But it never is, because Adams is so vile and I cannot abide the way he spits on the grave of people who died of cancer, people like Tony Snow, Patrick Swayze, Elizabeth Edwards, and Farrah Fawcett. Every time, his MO is the same. He claims that it wasn’t the cancer that killed, but rather the chemotherapy, to which he often adds a faux-plaintive, regretful, “If only [insert name of dead celebrity] had used ‘natural treatments’ she would still be alive today.” Whenever he can, Adams likes to find a photo of the celebrity who died taken not long before death, when inevitably that celebrity, ravaged by cancer, appears shockingly emaciated (as Patrick Swayze did) and use for shock value to blame the celebrity’s condition on the chemotherapy, rather than the real cause, the cancer. If I were equally despicable, I’d plaster a picture of Robin Gibb just before he died up on this post. Gibbs, as you might recall, used naturopathy to battle his cancer and died anyway. Before the end, he looked almost as bad as Patrick Swayze did. Unfortunately, that’s what advanced stage cancer looks like.

Be that as it may, I haven’t written about one of these trademark screeds by Mike Adams in a while, and I wouldn’t have even written about this one were it not for the fact that Adams adds a new twist to his usual narrative. This time around, I’m referring to the recent death of Joseph “Beau” Biden, Vice President Joseph Biden’s son, who unfortunately died of a brain tumor at the very much too young age of 46:

In 2010, the younger Mr. Biden, known as Beau, had suffered what officials described as a mild stroke. Three years later, he was admitted to the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston after what White House officials described at the time as “an episode of disorientation and weakness.”

Officials said in 2013 that the doctors in Texas had removed a small lesion from his brain.

And:

Beau Biden, 46, a former Delaware attorney general, was found to have brain cancer in August 2013. He underwent surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas in Houston, to remove a lesion. That was followed by radiation treatment and chemotherapy, and his doctor gave him a clean bill of health in November, officials said.

He suffered a recurrence of illness this spring and was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in May, officials said.

Although the family hasn’t announced exactly what kind of cancer Beau Biden had, the most likely candidate, based on his age and the clinical course of the cancer, is glioblastoma. Of course, we’ve discussed glioblastoma on this blog far too many times, usually in the context of discussing “cancer cure” testimonials of patients of Stanislaw Burzynski. It’s a nasty tumor that is very hard to remove completely with surgery, which is why it has a deadly propensity to recur after apparently successful treatment. Reading between the lines of the stories above, it sounds as though he was fotunate enough to have had his tumor detected when it was still small, so that it could be removed with surgery. As is often the case with glioblastoma (which is what, for purposes of discussion, I am assuming that Beau Biden likely had), it recurred within two years. Of course, it could be that Biden didn’t have a glioblastoma, but, whatever type of brain cancer he had, it killed him within two years of diagnosis.

Yes, glioblastomas (and other forms of brain cancer) are nasty tumors. They’re one of the kinds of tumors that, admittedly, medical science doesn’t do that well with. Despite our best efforts, they usually eventually kill the patient, sometimes quickly, sometimes not-so-quickly, with few long term survivors. None of this stops Mike Adams from proclaiming that Joe Biden’s son Beau was killed by chemotherapy and glyphosate. Yes, in addition to his usual schtick about how it was chemotherapy, rather than the cancer, that killed a cancer patient like Beau Biden, somehow, some way Adams managed to bring genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into his rant and blame Biden’s death on a combination of the two. After affecting a faux sympathy for Beau Biden, Joseph Biden, and the rest of the Biden family, even going so far as to offer them transparently insincere “condolences,” Adams then gets to his real topic:

Frustratingly, I believe that Beau Biden, like hundreds of thousands of other Americans each year, was killed by a combination of chemotherapy, radiation and glyphosate. “He was diagnosed with brain cancer in August 2013 and underwent surgery, radiation and chemotherapy,” reports Reuters. “After getting a ‘a clean bill of health’ in November of that year, his cancer recurred in the spring of 2015, the vice president’s office said.”

In other words, after being diagnosed with brain cancer, Beau underwent toxic chemotherapy — a treatment that causes permanent brain damage known as “chemo brain” — while enduring radiation treatment on top of that chemo. Oncologists who prescribe chemotherapy drugs earn massive profits from those drugs, all while failing to disclose their own conflicts of interest to their patients.

Unfortunately, chemotherapy kills far more people than it saves because its primary side effect is recurring cancer. Yes, chemotherapy causes cancer. And the ignorant oncologists who prescribe it actively encourage patients to avoid protecting their healthy cells with nutritional therapies such as medicinal mushrooms, anti-cancer foods and healthy oils such as cod liver oil. In fact, oncology as practiced today is a barbaric medical practice that quite literally kills people by the hundreds of thousands each year.

This is depressingly of a piece with the very first Mike Adams “masterpiece” that I deconstructed way back in 2007. it’s the same sort of lies that Adams has been spreading for years and years. Contrary to what Adams claims, chemotherapy does work. True, it works better against some cancers than others. In the case of glioblastoma, for instance, the effect on survival is modest at best. In someone young and healthy, like Beau Biden, it’s a reasonable option, particularly for resectable glioma. No one denies that chemotherapy can cause problems, in particular drugs used to treat brain cancers like temozolomide. These are known side effects, and many people who undergo chemotherapy and radiation therapy to the brain will suffer cognitive impairment as a result. However, those potential adverse effects have to be weighed against the benefit of maximizing one’s chance of survival against cancer.

So far, this is just a standard-issue Mike Adams. Predictably, it’s followed by “disappointment” that “there’s no mention of him receiving the benefit of any healing protocols that might boost immune function and fight cancer, such as vitamin D and vitamin C therapies, anti-cancer juicing protocols like Gerson Therapy, or even insulin-potentiated micro-dosing of chemotherapy agents that target cancer cells while mostly avoiding healthy ones.” In other words, there are no stories about Beau Biden pursuing cancer quackery, which is as it should be; that is, unless you’re Mike Adams. Of course, if Beau Biden had pursued those therapies, unfortunately he’d be just as dead, and that wouldn’t do for Adams’ propaganda. It’s better for Adams that Biden stuck to conventional treatments, so that he can falsely claim it was the chemotherapy that caused Biden’s tumor to come roaring back after a year and a half, which is, unfortunately well within the usual time frame when brain tumors recur if they’re going to recur.

Now here’s the twist. Adams starts speculating about what caused Biden’s brain tumor. Not surprisingly, he rapidly zeroes in on another one of his bogeymen, glyphosphate:

The other great crime of the for-profit cancer industry as practiced in Western medicine today is the utter unwillingness to honestly assess the environmental causes of cancer in the first place.

It’s an incredibly important question: What sort of environmental causes could lead to fatal brain cancer in an otherwise healthy 46-year-old man?

I believe a significant part of that answer is glyphosate, the cancer-causing herbicide chemical used alongside GMOs in corporate agriculture.

As even Scientific American has now acknowledged, glyphosate has been linked to cancer by the World Health Organization.

The announcement, published in The Lancet, establishes the likelihood of a causal link between glyphosate exposure and cancer. This paper is based on “…17 experts from 11 countries [who] met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate.” You can read about it in more detail at this link at GMOevidence.com.

I’ve discussed the problems with the WHO classification of whether something is or is not a carcinogen before, particularly in the context of cell phone radiation, which was classified as 2B, possibly carcinogenic, even though the evidence used to come up with that was incredibly weak. In this case, apparently WHO classified glyphosate as 2A, probably carcinogenic. The Scientific American article linked to doesn’t really describe any good justification for this decision:

The IARC review notes that there is limited evidence for a link to cancer in humans. Although several studies have shown that people who work with the herbicide seem to be at increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the report notes that a separate huge US study, the Agricultural Health Study, found no link to non-Hodgkin lymphomas. That study followed thousands of farmers and looked at whether they had increased risk of cancer.

But other evidence, including from animal studies, led the IARC to its ‘probably carcinogenic’ classification. Glyphosate has been linked to tumours in mice and rats — and there is also what the IARC classifies as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate.

And that, in a nutshell, is the big problem with the WHO’s classification scheme to rate the carcinogenicity of compounds and conflicts with a recent systematic review of the question, which found “no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate” and the German Risk Agency report, which concludes that existing data (the same data used by the IARC) “do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.” So is glyphosate carcinogenic or not? If it is, the evidence sure isn’t very strong, even the evidence used in the IARC review published in The Lancet Oncology, relying as it does on animal experiments and finding basically no convincing evidence in humans. Basically, the WHO is way, way conservative, taking the precautionary principle to ridiculous heights in the way the IARC assesses carcinogenicity. As my good bud Skeptical Raptor reminds us, formaldehyde is listed as a Group 1 carcinogen (definitely carcinogenic to humans), and it’s everywhere, including fruit like apples. However, at the levels normally encountered in food (and vaccines) it’s harmless.

Of course, even if glyphosate were carcinogenic (which it appears not to be, at least not at a clinically significant level), there would be no way of knowing that it caused Beau Biden’s brain cancer. Even Mike Adams ends up having to equivocate and admit that. Unfortunately, he does so in the context of a particularly vicious attack on the grieving Joe Biden:

We can’t know for sure whether glyphosate gave Beau Biden brain cancer, but we do know for a fact that Joe Biden is another pro-Monsanto sellout of the Democratic party who supports the mass poisoning of America with cancer-causing chemicals as long as people like himself are kept in positions of political power. It’s a harsh statement, yes, but it’s also true: these are the people who enable the corporate poisoners whose toxic chemicals cause widespread cancer, suffering and death. They even sacrifice the safety of their own sons and daughters in exchange for a few million dollars of financial support during their campaigns. They seemingly value nothing other than money and power, and as a result they condemn us all to the mass poisoning of the for-profit cancer industry and the criminally-run corporate agriculture giants.

Stay classy, Mike. Stay classy.

Yes, there’s nothing like accusing the grieving father who just lost his son of having helped cause that cancer. Even if the claim is utterly unsupported BS, it’s still hurtful and shameful. Near the end of his little rant, Adams bolds a message of, “Shame on all you politicians in Washington,” when it is Adams who should be ashamed.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

209 replies on “Why I despise Mike Adams: Blaming Beau Biden’s cancer on chemotherapy and glyphosate”

Was the mild stroke in 2010 caused by the brain cancer that was diagnosed three years later? Doctors dropped the ball?

Any thoughts on Novocure’s Optune treatment of glioblastoma with alternating electric fields?

I doubt mike adams has any shame, making such an attack on someone who has recently passed and blaming the family for the passing. But then again, you see this with quacks, blaming the victim instead of looking at themselves.

We can’t know for sure whether glyphosate gave Beau Biden brain cancer, but we do know for a fact that Joe Biden is another pro-Monsanto sellout

Ah. Claims of Immanent Justice. “Who lives by the sword dies by the sword”, or something like this.
Always an easy appeal for the self-righteous.
And exactly the sort of things decent people say at the deceased’s wake.

Frustratingly, I believe

Yes, it is frustrating that he believes (or claims to).

Who does Adams blame for brain tumors which occurred prior to glyphosate? Although I hear glyphosphate caused Gershwin’s brain tumor too.

Just what can be expected from Mike Adams. If someone gets ill or dies it has to be due to them not living their life in the right way. It is borrowed from some dogmatic religious ideas where the ‘guru’ is always right and his followers need to stay in line.

It just goes to show the sort of person Mike Adams is, as if that was needed.

“It’s an incredibly important question: What sort of environmental causes could lead to fatal brain cancer in an otherwise healthy 46-year-old man?”

Why does there need to be an environmental cause? Why not a genetic disposition? Of course, that would undermine all of the quacks who insist that you can control your destiny just by eating and thinking correctly.

The first thing I would do with a patient with an early onset cancer is take a family history.

Adams either doesn’t understand or intentionally ignores[1] that “cancer” is not a single disease, but an umbrella term for a bunch of different diseases. So even if glyphosphate did cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma (the evidence of this is, as Orac notes, ambiguous), that would not imply that it causes brain tumors. This, of course, is one of the reasons cancer research is as difficult as it is.

[1]I suspect the latter, ,because somebody as active in alt-med as Mike Adams is should understand the point, but I can’t prove it.

Another thing bugs me : the IARC studied people who worked with glysophate, chronic high exposure.
Why generalize it to people who are exposed to trace amounts via food ?
It reminds me of formaldehyde, far more dangerous for people who work with it day to day.

Did Mike Adams ever take on the case of Sam Dyer, the oncologist’s son in Great Britain who decided against mainstream therapy for an inoperable brain tumor, and instead turned to prayer, the Budwig diet and cannabis oil (there are numerous pro-pot websites that talk about him curing his tumor with cannabis)?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2247891/Sam-25-dying-brain-tumour-insists-faith-healing-cure-him.html

The unfortunate outcome of his case doesn’t seem to have been as prominently covered by the pro-cannabis crowd.

https://sallyanndyer.wordpress.com/

Max @1 —

You asked:

Any thoughts on Novocure’s Optune treatment of glioblastoma with alternating electric fields?

I went to Novocure’s website; there’s a a lot of nice professional web design, but as far as I could tell the only explanation of how this is supposed to work was the following:

Tumor Treating Fields, or TTFields, are low intensity, alternating electric fields within the intermediate frequency range. TTFields disrupt cell division through physical interactions with key molecules during mitosis. This non-invasive treatment targets solid tumors.

This strikes me as highly implausible — though not entirely impossible — and I didn’t see any links to studies showing that this works even in a laboratory setting, let alone in patients.

So my guess is that any benefits are illusory. It’s likely that the people running this outfit think it works, but I’d be surprised if it actually does.

There are hundreds of known carcinogens and probably hundreds more unknown. Some we can avoid like asbestos or tobacco smoke but lots of times we can’t. No one,not even Supermike, can avoid them all, solar radiation, radium from rocks etc. After that it’s the luck of the draw.

Why did Adams pick glyphosphate from this enormous list with absolutely no reason? It becomes clear later in the post when it was obviously a set up so that he could slam the Father as the cause of his son’s death. Adams is an evil b*****.

I wonder if Ol’ Mikey was advising Steve Jobs about treatments? 🙁

Tumor Treating Fields, or TTFields, are low intensity, alternating electric fields within the intermediate frequency range.

This is, as I’m sure you are aware, pure technobabble. “Intermediate” compared to what? The term does not correspond to any frequency range on the ITU list or any other list of electromagnetic frequencies. And even the highest frequencies on the ITU list are probably still too low to have a significant effect on chemistry–you might have some vibrational modes of DNA or RNA in the THF/terahertz range, but I’m not sure of that, and even that is way too low to ionize anything.

You need to get into the UV range before you get electromagnetic waves that have any effect at all. Unfortunately, the effect you get is generally not a desirable effect.

“Shame on all you politicians in Washington”

Interestingly, I just ran across a woo conference or gathering of loons that listed Mikey as being domiciled in the “Republic of Texas”. I can’t recall exactly where it was ( Bolen?) but I’m sure that he’ll use that again.

Like the other idiot I survey, he often says despicable things about his own country: predicting doom, gloom, poverty and widespread devastation. Both told their thralls to move to Texas ( but not the dry part/ the other owns a spread near Tyler) as the coasts were dens of liberal corruption and soon to be wiped out by rising waters, drought, famine, earthquakes, radiation, taxes and gang rule ( only one believes in AGW- not Mike).

NOW Mike is writing about floods in his own Austin area and donating pure foods.. Why didn’t he predict that?

Orac’s link to the article in question delivered ‘The Top 10 Scientific Achievements of Mikey Poo’ of August last.

He must be very proud of his work.

Good gosh! Like any pesticide, glyphosate poses some potential harms, based on how it’s used, ‘dosage’ etc., but lumping it in with parathion, malathion, and diazinon is just tacky guilt-by-association. The whole anti-GMO scene just depresses me in it’s mis-direction. The GMO-foods don’t hurt people, and Roundup is less toxic than the herbicides it replaced, yet Monsanto’s sales practices and the land and crop use they do for R&D pose real questions about exploiting indigenous farmers and environmental policy. They’re basically getting a free pass though, because the would-be ‘critics’ all seem to be scaremongering stuff that isn’t a real problem, leaving the genuine issues in the dark. They’re complicated, not-as-dramatic, not ‘scandalous’. Just corporate business-as-usual.

In fact, if I was running PR for Monsanto, I would be funneling pay-offs to Mike Adams, since his maniacal howling up the wrong tree is actually protecting the company by effectively deflecting scrutiny into irrelevant areas and ludicrous rhetoric. (I’m surprised Mikey didn’t depict Joe Biden as Eichmann and Beau as an death camp victim. That’s about his usual speed.)

Orac’s link to the article in question delivered ‘The Top 10 Scientific Achievements of Mikey Poo’ of August last.

Links from RI typically do this. One trick, if for whatever reason you want to actually see what the link goes to, is to G–gle the title of the NN page and go from there.

yet Monsanto’s sales practices and the land and crop use they do for R&D pose real questions about exploiting indigenous farmers and environmental policy.

I actually put a lot less stock in vague criticisms of this sort than I used to a few years ago. I mean, when I was a 13-year-old anarchist and living in the PNW during the whole “K.O. the WTO” era, I read more than my share of Vandana Shiva and swallowed her BS hook, line and sinker, but callow youth is a good excuse for things like that. (She’s a straight-up liar, as it turns out.)

There was a case I read about recently in which a biotech company basically did take a locally developed strain of wheat – this was somewhere in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, I think maybe Nepal – tweaked it, and attempted to patent it. It wasn’t actually Monsanto, though unfortunately I can’t remember the name of the company, or I’d be able to find an actual link to what I was reading.

Anyway, seeing as traditional hybrid crops can also be patented, I see no reason why that kind of thing couldn’t be tried by taking an indigenous strain of some crop, tweaking it a bit through more traditional genetic modification, and patenting it.

@ JP:

I know.
I wanted to illustrate his tactics.
-btw – Mikey now has his own search engine, Good Gopher, that avoids g—gle’s corporatocratic dictatorship:
he’s selling ad space. See NN today.

^ Ah, there are a couple takes on the wheat story here and here. The first is from a capital-L Libertarian rag, the second isn’t, but in any case, I’d trust just about anybody to put forth an honest account more than I would Greenpeace or Vandana Shiva.

he’s selling ad space. See NN today.

Ha:

Financially, our goal is to simply cover the operating costs of running and expanding GoodGopher. Because of our restrictions against corporate advertisers, this effort may never be profitable.

Uh-huh.

Eric @14.

Exactly.

This looks to be a pretty sizeable operation, and their CEO even persuaded TED to give him a forum.

Incidentally, one of their branch offices isn’t too far from you.

Here’s hoping Vice President Biden comes across this BS and publicly chews Adams out. Our VP can give some pretty effective put downs when he wants to.

“Yes, there’s nothing like accusing the grieving father who just lost his son of having helped cause that cancer.”

Did his grieving father grieve for any of the innocent children and families bombed by the Administration he supports? How much compassion has the war criminal father shown to the millions of dead, maimed, raped, tortured and pillaged?

Fuk the dad and his war criminal buddies. Maybe he will have some compassion and stop murdering people in the name of politics.

I suggest that we all simply ignore #25.

Meanwhile, I’d be interested to hear any opinions from the more biomed-oriented folks responding to myself @11 and Eric Lund @14, in which we were referring to a question posed in the first comment.

@ JP:

I’ve been watching Mikey’s antics since 2007/ 2008 and he’s tried many different ways to make money-
getting people to sell supplements (MLM), selling foods, books, videos, memberships for woo broadcasts, farm kits etc etc etc- my own fave was his *colonia* in Ecuador- real estate, nature hikes, lectures, eco- tourism.

LouV @9, you are exactly correct. I keep trying to tell people that, along with dose, method of exposure to chemicals makes a lot of difference.

Inhalation is usually the worst route, because your lungs just absorb it directly into the bloodstream, you might as well have injected it into a vein. Skin absorption less so, the skin protects against anything water-soluble, and even organic-solubles are slowed up and somewhat mitigated.

Sometimes oral ingestion is the least-dangerous route: the chemical may be destroyed, or perhaps made less nasty, by the digestive system, and you at least have a little protection, in that oral ingestion may cause vomiting, get some of it out of you.

So, you all just try putting yourself in glyphosphate’s shoes: there’s a difference between being nicely absorbed by farmers through their lungs and skin, and being thrown into someone’s stomach, chock-full of digestive enzymes and hydrochloric acid, at pH 3! See if you can still cause cancer after you’re been though that!

A dear friend of mine dies of a brain tumor and I completely agree. Thank you for posting this.

Never heard of these TTFields. There is a thing called Electroporation Therapy, which uses high voltage oscillating fields to induce pore formation in cell membranes. The idea is that if, for whatever reason, membrane pores are more acutely toxic to cancer cells than adjacent normal tissue, you can selectively kill the cancer while only injuring the normal cells.

I see phase one trials in PubMed, not sure if it’s gone farther than that. People are mostly interested in trying this on skin cancer. I can’t imagine sticking one of these devices in someone’s brain.

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet! Wait until Mike Adams plows through this recent paper:

How many more times can Stephanie Seneff publish Nancy Swanson’s spurious correlations without one of the journals working out that they have already been published?

Probably never as she publishes in the pay to play literature.

Not entirely OT as I found it at Natural News/ right column:

“Hoofnagle the Science Cat emerges as rock star to shutdown pathetic science fundamentalists”

3 videos featuring- Grumpy cat playing a metallic guitar, a “skepduck”, Dr G, Randi, Las Vegas Amazing Meeting.
I assume it’s anti-sceptic but one can never be sure when viewing such a mash.

Why call the cat Hoofnagle? Those guys are sceptics.

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet! Wait until Mike Adams plows through this recent paper:

Surgical Neurology International? Now there’s a familiar name.

Surgical Neurology International

Associate Editors-in-Chief
R.L. Blaylock

There you go.

Eric @ 14

From the Wikipedia article stating the frequency range is 100 kHz to 300 kHz, I rather suspect “intermediate frequency” is misapplication of a term that has long been established.
In radio frequency communication, it used to be very common (less so now, with other methods available) to heterodyne (mix) the carrier radio frequency signal with a local oscillator frequency to produce a more-readily processed “intermediate frequency” – that is, intermediate between the RF carrier frequency and the modulating frequency. For AM radio, 455 kHz is by far the most common.

And yes, I’m interested in tumor treating fields because I’ve been told that non-ionizing radiation isn’t s’posed to do anything but heat water.

Oy, Mike Adams. I have said this before and it looks like it’s time to say it again: “choosing natural healing” is a euphemism for “rejecting treatment while engaging in elaborate anxiety reduction rituals.”

One of my closest friends was cleared of astrocytoma (a more treatable form of brain cancer) via “conventional” “allopathic” “Western” medicine (chemo & radiation), and as a result he’s now alive and well. So this time it’s personal.

Why I despise Mike Adams:

He’s a craptastic fraudulent b—–d who earns more money promoting garbage that kills people, than any half dozen of the honest medical professionals on this board including Orac earn by actually providing real medicine and surgery that really treat illnesses.

He’s a classic sociopath with zero empathy for others, a relentless self-promoter with “charm” galore, and an accomplished liar who may or may not believe his own BS but hooks countless thousands to believe it at their own peril.

And he does all of this with a degree of smug that defines the term, like a professional thief who can’t help but crack a smirk after cracking a safe.

IMHO he’s a waste of protoplasm and the air, water, and food it takes to keep him chugging along. If there’s any justice in this universe, he’ll go on live TV, drink one of his magic potions, and then proceed to puke it right up on camera for the multitudes. And the studio audience will laugh him off the stage.

Grrr.

Don Irvine comment #32: Seneff is trained in computer science, not biochemistry, and it shows in all of her work. The article you cite is a wide-ranging review showing no original research and no direct connection between herbicide use and Mn deficiency. It’s not proof, just more allegations and accusations. I’d have to see a real biologist show original work proving these wild claims before I’d believe any of her ideas. Seneff is such a TrueBeliever(tm) that she even references a disgraced rat tumor “study” by Seralini which is utter garbage and not taken seriously by scientists.

Max comment #33: I was tempted to call TTFs ‘snake oil’, but I looked it up first. TED talks give an overview, but they can be little more than live advertisements, so I dug further. Initial animal tests and early human trials were interesting and promising enough that the FDA approved the device for treating humans in 2011. (That approval’s not so hard to get given there’s no other treatment once surgery and chemo are done. A little help is better than none as long as there’s no harm. I was curious but not hugely impressed so far.)
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm254480.htm
A 2014 phase III study was ended early because the results were so good they wanted all patients to get the treatment.
http://novocure.com/~/media/Files/N/Novocure/press-release/2014/201408-EF14-Trial-Results-Press-Release.pdf
It’s definitely got me interested enough to read some more, but not at this hour.

JerryA #45
Had no particular thoughts of this myself; it was more of a cue for the originator of the thread to comment

@JerryA #45

I enthusiastically second your remarks about Senneff and Seralini.

Especially with respect to True Believers who muddy the water with self-reinforcing propaganda dumps dressed up to look like science reports. On a broad array of crackpot notions, once an enthusiast gets his hands on a piece of paper that looks like proof of some kind he will never listen to reason – especially if it comes from a person with some kind of credential via some kind of journal that at least looks peer reviewed: an article in Entropy by Doctor Seneff of MIT is made to order.

Had no particular thoughts of this myself; it was more of a cue for the originator of the thread to comment

We can but hint to the proprietor, although he is strangely resistant to our suggestions.

I noticed another Seneff opus in Surgical Neurology International which could easily become grist to Mike Adams’ mill:
Diminished brain resilience syndrome: A modern day neurological pathology of increased susceptibility to mild brain trauma, concussion, and downstream neurodegeneration.

Now some people would say that until recently the NFL put a lot of effort into downplaying the problem of sports-related concussions and head injuries, until the tobacco-science eventually failed and the frequency of brain damage among footballers was no longer deniable. But the theme of this paper from Morley and Seneff is that the increasing reporting of sports-related brain damage is caused by glyphosate. And sun-block. And poor diet / lack of supplements.
Blaylock’s “shaken-baby-syndrome = The Vaccines” ideas are there in the background.

Did I mention that the first author is a Holistic Nutritionist for Sports Concussion, who sells special-purpose supplement pills?

So the Daily Mail is reporting that Val Kilmer, 55, looked frail and a shadow of his former self, and that he has denied rumors that he is battling throat cancer, and that reports earlier this year suggested Val was relying on his Christian Science religion to heal his health problem, and that according to an insider, anyone who persisted with asking the actor to seek medical help was simply cut out of his life.

@ Gray Squirrel:

That was well-written. Excellent! I agree with you entirely.

I’ve been trying to ascertain how much filthy lucre Mikey earns but so far, no dice.
I imagine that having businesses registered overseas enables him to keep this quiet.( I HAVE been able to use business sites to estimate how much the other- rich- idiot, Gary Null, earns – although I haven’t looked in a while, I recall 10-12 million USD per annum).

So how are they able to do this?

I think these two frauds speak well to people who have axes to grind against authorities/ experts and who can’t ‘see into’ others’ motivations well.

You’ll notice if you read or hear their screeds that all reasonable providers of information- governments, SBM and media- are demonised by presenting any instances of error or wrongdoing that may have occurred in the past 200 years or so. Earnings are then paraded as proof of criminal activity.

They present themselves as humanitarian-scientists ( really!) as exemplars of morality who have only the public interest in mind: they would protect consumers from greedy entrepreneurs and doctors who would heartlessly take all of their hard earned money.

They preach, “Don’t trust anyone except ME!”

People may accept this line of bs because over time, they have presented themselves as friendly, down home folks who just HAPPEN to also be groundbreaking geniuses, far ahead on the ‘learning curve’, initiating paradigm shift all the live long day. And followers can be in their inner circle!

After years of following this crap, I believe it’s important to reveal how much money these guys make and how they live. Show their estates. -btw- I haven’t been able to find Mikey’s current house- which he says is not much- only his hacienda in Ecuador which he had for sale.

I notice that in the past several years, they both needed to reiterate how much they give to charity as damage control which I never heard before. PRN is rife with these claims. Mikey gives away money and farm kits to schools and donates pure foods to flood victims. They both have registered charities.

This tells me that they must have experienced complaints or publicity about their wealth. We need to do more.

I wouldn’t want to mislead anyone by not being clear-
those figures I quoted were for sales, not earnings after expenses-
I’m sure that NO one would EVER over- estimate costs of doing business.. Never happens.

Herr Doktor Bimmler #37:
Thanks for that delightful rabbit-hole — how many more stories like that must there be out there?
#49 “Thionetic Nutrition”?! Sounds like Precious Bodily Fluids, to me.
Actually, the piece that got me started down this path was something published last year, but that I ran into only yesterday:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/

#49 “Thionetic Nutrition”?! Sounds like Precious Bodily Fluids, to me.

I would have thought that when Morley’s day job consists of selling people special pills that will mitigate the effects of self-diagnosed head injuries and “Diminished Brain Resilience Syndrome” (a term of her own coinage), it might be worth noting the potential conflict of interest when she co-authors a paper introducing the concept of “Diminished Brain Resilience Syndrome”” and promoting supplements to mitigate the effects of head injuries. But there is much I have to learn about ethics.

something published last year, but that I ran into only yesterday:

Yikes! The Google machine informs me that the paper was bad enough that an editor resigned from the journal in disgust.

Shiva IS full of BS, but some of what she says remains true (broken clock?). She’s a major source of my angst though, as she’s derailing the legit concerns she raises with headline-grabbing sensationalist nonsense building her little cult of personality. I don’t know anything about bogus patenting — the stuff the environmental folks I’ve met are concerned about isn’t really specific to GMO, and is more generic to industrialized agriculture in general — that is, the same issues could be present in developing traditional hybrids.

I think the most important thing here is the comment section, where this crowd takes it almost as a matter of fact that if only Biden would have taken THC oil and drank baking soda and eaten non-GMO foods and treated his parasites, everything would have been OK. Over the past generation, CAM has devolved from a loopy self-empowerment belief system to a really toxic stew of conspiracy, cultishness, and auto-didacticism. A lot of the comments here are taking the piss, but this site is actually hurting people by spreading this stuff. It makes my blood boil, because I see these people in clinic a couple times a week. Sometimes, they die.

I’ve cured over 150 of my patients with holistic methods of those 150 that followed my diet 16 received chemotherapy 14 of them are now dead. If you understand the cause of cancer you will understand why chemotherapy fails so many. Out of the 134 patients that followed my principals only 6 have died these people cancers were also very advanced and if they had come to me earlier they probably would still be alive.

Why delete my comment? There’s better success rates with cancer through the forms of bacteria’s my diet is mainly a raw animal based diet I’ve had a 97% success rate with cancer. I also have the science on my side 🙂

At the university of tornoto Canada Dr. Sara Arab injected verotoxin, a bacterial byproduct from e.coil directly into human malignant tumors. After a single injection, the verotoxin completely dissolved both the tumors and their blood vessels within 2-7 days.

Dr. K. Brooks Lowe of Yale university reported that researchers used salmonella to reverse cancer.

The micro science that studies “pathogrns” is relatively new (60 years) and flawed. Newer research (20 years) has been and is being performed, proving that pathogens are responsible for the reversal of cancer, and possibly for cancer prevention.

You people sit on this forum like y’all know what y’all are talking about yet you guys do NO RESEARCH, I’ve done my research. Future scientist will laugh at people like y’all SHEEP.

That’s what I thought sheep, future scientist will laugh at people like y’all 🙂 good job not trying to debate me I could and would make y’all look silly.

Sheep sheep sheep, when bacterial injections become the main cancer treatment in the next 50 years remember me. Chemotherapy fails it attacks the symptoms of cancer without attacking the cause of cancer maybe you should learn that first.
You also said chemotherapy only attacks unhealthy cells and not healthy cells, thats complete false if you did research you would know that’s bullshit, cancer is dead cells they can’t be unhealthy because there already dead, if you put a tumor under a microscope all you see is dead cells, chemotherapy attacks dead cells not unhealthy cells so you already don’t know shit.

Don’t indulge in delusions of adequacy. New posters and profanity go into moderation.

Herr Doktor Bimler
#54
Thanks for that link — just what I needed. I should stop being such a lazy bunt and master that Google Machine myself…

Hey shay #61http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990701070106.htm 🙂 I can site another thousand more if you would like, instead of receiving the injections I prescribe we eat raw meat and feces to receive theses bacteria’s.

Haven’t you ever wondered why animals eat there feces? In the 90’s scientist saw chimpanzee’s that had cancer started eating there feces at a very high rate, I proposed to these scientist that it was the e.coil content in the feces of course the scientist called me a quack this was in 1990, now later were seeing a connection with bacteria’s dissolving tumors, the animals were eating the feces on a instincltly level because they knew it would help them.

Even though these therapy are very successful, many of the patients now suffer with chronic viral symptoms. That is what happens if you treat the disease without understanding the cause of cancer.

Cancer is basically the inability to discard dead cells. The body gathers those cells in a particular area, called a tumor, until it later can dissolve those cells, unfortunately because of our diets we never end up dissolving these tumors, so we in return try to attack these cells instead of removing through the form of raw fats and raw bacteria’s , instead we use chemotherapy which attacks the symptoms of cancer this is why its so unsuccessful

Hey, Matt Hirschhorn #63!
Are you the same Matt Hirschhorn who’s a stocker at Dollar Tree in Austin?

Matt hirschhorn
Oh joy! Keith Bell’s stupider brother has come to visit!

Oh joy! Keith Bell’s stupider brother has come to visit!

IKR?

I can site another thousand more if you would like, instead of receiving the injections I prescribe we eat raw meat and feces to receive theses bacteria’s.

Is this real? Am I high?

I’ve cured over 150 of my patients with holistic methods of those 150 that followed my diet 16 received chemotherapy 14 of them are now dead. If you understand the cause of cancer you will understand why chemotherapy fails so many. Out of the 134 patients that followed my principals only 6 have died these people cancers were also very advanced and if they had come to me earlier they probably would still be alive.

I smell bullsh!t.

I can site another thousand more if you would like, instead of receiving the injections I prescribe we eat raw meat and feces to receive theses bacteria’s.

I was right.

Haven’t you ever wondered why animals eat there feces?

For some species it is about retaining Vitamin B12.

<i.Haven’t you ever wondered why animals eat there (sic) feces?

No.

I have a dog. A large Newfoundland dog. In addition to eating her feces, she will also consume discarded roof shingles, toilet shut-off valve covers, and Lego.

I can’t imagine why that scientist called you a quack.

Peace, people, peace!
Either Matt’s confused enough to be harmless, or he really is a Dollar Tree stocker, in which case he may merely be doing something postmodern

“At the university of tornoto Canada Dr. Sara Arab injected verotoxin, a bacterial byproduct from e.coil directly into human malignant tumors. After a single injection, the verotoxin completely dissolved both the tumors and their blood vessels within 2-7 days”

It’s TORONTO you pissant. And DON’T co-opt Sara Arab’s excellent work for your shillacious bullsh!t.

JP @66 —

Is this real? Am I high?

(1) Apparently.
(2) Hopefully.

[Grammar mavens are finally coming around to understand that “hopefully” can be used like everyone uses it, rather than being restricted to being an adverb. Thankfully.]

Matt Hirschhorn is a friend and a patient, is anyone going to refute what I’m saying or just attack me because y’all have done NO scientific research

One morning I shouted a request to Mr. Delphine from upstairs. I asked him to leave me some cash as I had none, would require some later that day for parking, and had no time to stop at a bank machine. Mr. Delphine complied and left me a $20 bill on the stairs right before he rushed out the door.

When I came downstairs a few minutes later I was dismayed to find that Mr. Delphine had not heeded my request. I texted him in annoyance, to which he immediately responded, “But I’m sure I left you $20 on the stairs! I’m pretty sure I did!”

The following day, Dylan the Newfoundland shat out a perfect $20. Wrinkled, but still intact. I purchased Mr. Delphine’s favourite ale as a token of my repentance.

Perhaps my dog holds the key to curing rampant capitalistic greed.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: