I’ve written a lot about Mike Adams, the man who founded NaturalNews.com and has been one of the most prominent promoters of quackery on the Internet. Indeed, Mike Adams appears to be battling it out with Joe Mercola for the title of owning the biggest quackery website on the Internet. There’s one area, however, where Mike Adams clearly reigns supreme, and that’s latching on, ghoul-like, to major tragedies in order to promote his pro-quackery agenda. For example, when former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow died of metastatic colon cancer a couple of years ago, Mike Adams was right there to blame his death on chemotherapy while at the same time sliming Snow as the equivalent of having served as the press secretary for Hitler, given his tenure as having been President George W. Bush’s press secretary. When Patrick Swayze died of pancreatic cancer a year and a half ago, after having in essence told cancer quacks to put up or shut up immediately claimed that it was chemotherapy and conventional medicine that had doomed him, going further to say that “natural therapies” could have saved Swayze’s life. From metastatic pancreatic cancer. The mind boggles. Then, when Farrah Fawcett died of anal cancer, Mike Adams wrote a wildly unhinged little diatribe that included this geme:
Back to Farrah, while many of her friends and supporters say her battle with cancer was “an inspiration,” let me be the first to publicly state that to me, poisoning yourself with toxic chemicals is NOT inspiring, no matter how much suffering you go through. I do not believe that people should be given special recognition for pain and suffering they consciously choose to inflict upon themselves, especially when all that suffering is easily avoidable. It would have been far more “inspiring” for Farrah to choose healing remedies instead of deadly poisons.
Nice guy, huh?
So what do you think Adams had to say after the tragic events of Saturday, when a U.S. Representative–Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)–was shot in the head at a constituent event at a supermarket in Tucson. In that shooting spree, twenty people were shot, and six were killed, including John Roll, chief judge of the U.S. District Court of Arizona, and a nine-year-old girl named Christina Taylor Green. The suspected gunman is named Jared Lee Loughner, a 22-year-old who apparently walked up to Giffords and opened fire, shooting her in the head at point blank range and then turning the gun on members in the crowd. While Loughner apparently didn’t carry a psychiatric diagnosis, his writings on his MySpace page were disordered and rambling, certainly suggestive of mental illness. However, it should be pointed out that it is by no means certain that Loughner is mentally ill, even though it certainly is plausible that he is, given his behavior, stories by people who knew him, and his writings on his MySpace page. None of this stops Mike Adams for doing what he does best and demonizing psychiatry a mere 24 hours after the shooting in an article entitled Giffords shooter shows pattern of psychiatric derangement; no clear political affiliation. Not to be outdone by anyone, Adams then followed this article up with a claim that the government is trying to demonize people who “question the government” in an article entitled, appropriately enough, In wake of Giffords shooting, the mere act of questioning the government now being demonized.
I know I say it over and over again, but it looks as though Adams has hit a new low. I need to learn one thing right here. Whenever Adams sinks as low as I think he can sink, he always manages to find a way to prove me wrong and sink even lower. So this time I won’t make any claims that this is as low as Adams can go, but my mind recoils in disgust and dread contemplating just what, exactly, Adams could to do sink any lower. You’ll see what I mean in a minute. Well, not a minute. Now:
Does this ring a bell for anyone? A young white male, disillusioned, confused, mentally deranged… and opening fire on innocent people? That’s the pattern we saw in the Columbine High School shootings in 1999, and it turned out that the shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were on psychiatric medications. (http://www.naturalnews.com/025826_A…)
In fact, numerous public shootings have been carried out by those who are either on psychiatric medications or who have recently stopped taking them (which can be just as dangerous in the short term). Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold talked about how their world had become like a dream, where they couldn’t tell the difference between the dream world and the waking world. Those are now virtually the same words as Jared Lee Loughner who, in his various ramblings, talked about “sleepwalking” during the day and “conscience dreaming [sic]” at other times.
While we have no proof yet that psychiatric drugs are involved here, we do see a very suspicious pattern of mental instability that suggests a likely connection. The sleepwalking behaviors Loughner describes are, in fact, common side effects of psychotropic drugs such as Ambien, which is famous for causing people to actually “sleep drive” into town and suddenly awake in the middle of the road, driving their car in their pajamas, with no knowledge of how they got there.
Notice how Adams says again and again that he has no evidence that Loughner was on psychiatric medications, and indeed there isn’t. But that doesn’t stop him from speculating wildly that he was on psychiatric medications and then wondering if those medications drove Loughner to murder. What’s particularly disgusting about Adams’ technique is that, while he apparently thinks he’s attacking big pharma and its products, namely psychiatric medications, in reality what Adams is doing is demonizing the mentally ill far more than those whom he attacks as doing so. He refers to Loughner as “deranged” and his crime an “act of madness.” He rails against the “mainstream media” for misrepresenting Loughner’s crime as being politically motivated. Actually, as much as I hate to admit it, Adams might have a bit of point there. Too many on both sides were a bit too eager to try to blame Loughner’s actions on politics, be they Tea Party politics or a couple of Facebook friends I have who are going on and on about how Loughner was supposedly a left winger. The problem is that Adams then goes to another extreme by dismissing any potential effects due to our toxic discourse altogether and then blame it all on big pharma:
Rather, this is really a story about mental illness in America, and the roots of this mental illness are undoubtedly partly found in these elements:
- The chemical contamination of our food and water (fluoride, food additives, etc.)
- Widespread nutritional deficiencies that promote mental illness
- The scourge of the psychiatric drug industry and the widespread drugging of teens and children
… and also, quite possibly:
- The “programming” of young males with extremely violent video games which are now also used in the military to desensitize young adults to the violence of killing. Loughner, by the way, was reportedly a military recruit.
Except that the news reports I saw last night told me that, although Loughner did try to join the military, he was rejected. The reason couldn’t be revealed because of privacy regulations.
Adams continues his despicable rant in the second article. After first decrying as “ridiculous” the charge that some have made that it is our toxic political discourse, tinged with violent rhetoric, was to blame for Loughner’s rampage. While some partisans have exaggerated this as a possible motivating factor, it’s not entirely unreasonable to think that, if if the rhetoric is ramped up enough, it might inspire violence, particularly in the case of someone with mental illness. Even so all Adams does is to substitute his own view of what caused Loughner’s rampage for this view, switching the scapegoat from politicians and pundits who promote hyperbolic, violent rhetoric to the U.S. government itself. After making the straw man argument that he implication from these kinds of stories is that “if you criticize the government, you therefore promote violence” (the implication is that using violent rhetoric can in some cases inspire mentally ill individuals to carry out violent acts), Adams tries to blame the government:
That is, of course, a silly idea, especially considering the fact that the government nearly always uses the threat of violence against its own citizens to get what it wants. To use the example of Obamacare, the law itself says that if citizens don’t buy health insurance, the U.S. government will essentially extract a large sum of money from you by force through the use of IRS agents and, if necessary, the government seizure of your assets.
On the health care front, remember it was the U.S. government that committed medical violence against children by forcing teens with cancer to undergo chemotherapy against their will (http://www.naturalnews.com/019617.html). Various local governments also routinely threaten vegan parents with having their children taken away by Child Protective Services if they don’t start feeding their children processed factory foods such as hamburgers.
In other words, Adams sees it as a double standard that people are justly outraged by Loughner’s violent outburst that left six people dead and 14 people critically wounded but are not just as outraged by what he sees as the violent depredations of government, particularly against what he sees as “natural remedies.” For instance, the reference to “forcing teens with cancer to undergo chemotherapy against their will” is about Abraham Cherrix. What Adams neglects to mention is that ultimately Cherrix was not forced to undergo chemotherapy. Rather, he was allowed to use an woo-friendly radiation oncologist, who basically gave Cherrix effective, but incomplete, therapy (radiation but no chemotherapy) plus whatever quackery Cherrix wanted. Cherrix was not forced to undergo chemotherapy against his will; he didn’t even come close to being forced to undergo chemotherapy against his will. That’s a red herring anyway. The difference between Loughner’s violent rampage and the government’s enforcement of laws is, well, laws. Laws and due process.
Of course, never content to take the grain of a reasonable view (that it is patriotic to question the government) and keep it reasonable, Adams has to crank the rhetoric up to 11 and claim that the criticism of violent rhetoric and Loughner’s act of violence is nothing more than a means for the government to tell us to shut up. And when Adams gets going on a train of thought (such as it is) like this, you know what’s coming next, don’t you? Of course you do:
If the mere act of questioning the integrity of the federal government is now going to be blamed for every violent act, then we truly live under a society where the insanity of Jared Loughner has infected the minds of the newsmakers, too. It is a cowardly act to hide behind these deaths in Arizona while shouting out, “The questioners caused this! No more questioning the government!” This is precisely what the government-controlled press announced in the Nazi era. Anyone who dared to ask questions about Hitler’s ever-expanding power was arrested and (usually) put to death.
I believe this is a time when, more than ever, we all need to be standing up and asking questions such as: Is the FDA’s censorship against healthy nutrition part of the reason we have so much mental illness in America?
Because trying to keep quacks from taking advantage of the American public by enforcing the law is exactly like persecution of dissidents in Nazi Germany. At least it is to Mike Adams. Apparently it’s the reason for mental illness as well. Apparently, to Adams, if we all just took fish oil supplements none of us would ever develop mental illness.
In the end, I strongly suspect that Adams doesn’t really believe the nonsense he lays down. It’s too histrionic and transparent even for him. Rather, I suspect that Adams is cynically taking advantage of the anti-government sentiment currently in ascendance in order to promote his “health freedom” agenda, which is really nothing more than promoting the freedom of quacks to victimize the gullible unmolested by pesky laws and regulations. Whether his rhetoric works or not to influence government policy, he still wins. If it influences government policy to weaken consumer protection laws, he wins because he’ll be able to sell more supplements and “natural” remedies. If it doesn’t influence government, Adams wins because he can paint himself as a martyr being “persecuted” by the government.
And he doesn’t care if he befouls the memory of those whom Loughner has killed to do it.