If there’s one thing that will annoy an antivaccinationist, it’s to call her what she is: Antivaccine. While it’s true, as I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, that there are some antivaccinationists who are antivaccine and proud, unabashedly proclaiming themselves antivaccine and making no bones about it, the vast majority of antivaccinationists deny they are antivaccine. They frequently retort that they are “not antivaccine” but rather “pro-vaccine safety” or some such dodge. Most recently, we’ve seen this tack taken by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (and, of course, Bill Maher) himself, the man whose unhinged conspiracy mongering screed was my “gateway” to noticing and deconstructing antivaccine beliefs nearly a decade ago. it’s a refrain I first noticed in a big way when the celebrity face of the antivaccine movement, Jenny McCarthy herself, started using it. Whenever I start hearing that “I’m not antivaccine” refrain, I like to dig up examples of rhetoric from the antivaccine movement to put the lie to that claim. Of course, “dig up” is probably the wrong term; I rarely have to look far, and so it was this time..

Mike Adams let it rip, possibly surpassing even what I thought to be the most vile analogy every made about vaccines. It was by an Marcella Piper-Terry, comparing vaccination to rape. True, it could be argued that comparisons to the Holocaust are worse, but let’s just say it’s a tossup. Not surprisingly, Mikey’s latest rants are in response to California bill SB 277, which is a bill currently wending its way through the California Senate that would eliminate nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates. Of course, any attempt to make exemptions to chool vaccine mandates harder to obtain causes the antivaccine movement to go into paroxysms of Holocaust analogies, complete with images of jackbooted fascists knocking on parents’ doors in the middle of the night, syringes in hand, to throw the parents aside and vaccinate their children forcibly.

Coming back to the rape analogy, that’s where Adams goes with a post entitled Progressive lawmakers in California violate women’s rights with SB 277; children to be physically violated by government without parental consent and SB 277 will unleash “medical civil war” in California as parents demand doctors be arrested for felony assault. The level of paranoia in these screeds is truly beyond belief; that is, unless you’ve never encountered Adams before. Actually, the spin Adams tries to put on this is to make “vaccine choice” a matter of women’s rights:

Seriously, this is stupid even by Mike Adams standards. Here’s a taste of the written version, but to experience the full stupidity, you really need to watch the video:

California lawmakers pushing the mandatory vaccine initiative SB 277 are almost all Democrats. These are the same people who defiantly defend the right of “a woman’s choice” to decide the issue of abortion. We are repeatedly told that abortion is the woman’s choice alone, and that no government, no man and no doctor can force a woman to do something with her body against her will.

This also holds true with the issue of sexual encounters, where we are frequently reminded that NO means NO. If the woman doesn’t consent, then it’s called rape. So what do you call a forced medical intervention that physically violates a woman’s body against her wishes? “Medical rape” doesn’t seem quite appropriate. There must be a more poignant term for it.

Do you see the the problem with this analogy? It’s incredibly obvious. SB 277 has nothing to do with forcing women to receive vaccinations they don’t want. There’s nothing in the bill that would do that, nor is there anything any pro-vaccine advocate proposes that would compel an adult woman (or man) to be vaccinated against her (or his) will. That’s not what school vaccine mandates are about. None of this stops Adams from going full mental jacket antivax on the video, ranting about “toxins” and “formaldehyde” while referring to vaccines “maiming” children and implying that the government will require pregnant women to be vaccinated, thus causing all sorts of birth defects. His antivaccine dog whistles are whistling to the point that even mere humans can hear them behind Adams’ cries of “choice,” “human dignity,” “civil rights,” and “human freedom.”

There’s another aspect of Adams’ truly silly analogy here that might not be obvious on the surface. Adams goes on and on about the supposed disconnect between what liberals believe about women when it comes to reproductive choice and giving consent to sex, as well as its anti-corporatism, to what he describes as their advocacy of giving corporations the power to “violate” women with “forced vaccination.” Think about the assumption behind this whole line of “reasoning” (if you can call it that). The only assumption that makes this argument coherent (if you can call it that and even then it’s still wrong on many other levels) is if you assume that the child is an extension of the woman’s body. Thus, “violating” the child by “forced vaccination” is violating the woman. It’s hard not to look at it any other way.

Indeed, Adams seems to be doing Rand Paul even one better. Remember how Rand Paul, interrupting a female reporter’s question about his stance on school vaccine mandates, said, “The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.” Here, Adams seems to be saying that children aren’t even property. They’re just extension of the woman’s body.

Either that, or Adams thinks his audience is too stupid not to discern the difference between forcing an adult woman to be vaccinated (which is not what is being considered, given that every adult has the right to refuse any medical intervention and no one—I mean, no one—is questioning that) and requiring a child to be vaccinated before she can attend school. It could easily be either—or both.

Adams tries to make hay out of claiming that “injection without consent is a violation of the American Medical Association’s code of ethics:

A mandatory vaccination policy — forced vaccination of unwilling recipients — is, by definition, a medical intervention carried out without the consent of the patient or the patient’s parents. This directly violates the very clear language in the Informed Consent section of the AMA Code of Medical Ethics which states:

The patient should make his or her own determination about treatment… Informed consent is a basic policy in both ethics and law that physicians must honor, unless the patient is unconscious or otherwise incapable of consenting and harm from failure to treat is imminent.

The AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics statement is very clear: “physicians must honor” the policy of informed consent. In fact, the AMA describes this as “a basic policy in both ethics and law” and only makes exception if the patient “is unconscious” or if harm from failure to treat “is imminent.”

Except that, again, this is not “forced” vaccination. Parents can still refuse to vaccinate their children. However, if they do so, then they must realize that there will be consequences flowing from that decision. Children attending school have a right to a safe school environment, and unvaccinated children endanger that environment by making outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease more likely. Questions like this always boil down to a question of balancing individual rights versus the good of society. Also in the mix is the right of the child to proper medical care, particularly preventative care like vaccines, a right that people like Rand Paul and Mike Adams dismiss completely. To them, the child is nothing more than a possession or extension of the parents.

In any case, as Dorit Reiss explains, the doctrine of informed consent does not trump public health mandates and potential tort liability:

Does the Doctrine of Informed Consent Trump Public Health Mandates and Potential Tort Liability?

To repeat, the short answer is no. First, public health regulation always imposes some burden on the exercise of autonomy. Second, one may have both the private right to informed consent before vaccination and the public health obligation to be vaccinated. And the existence of the doctrine of informed consent does not mean there will be no other consequences to the informed decision that one makes.

And:

Since the famous case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, states have had wide powers to regulate for the public health – and, more particularly, impose immunization requirements – even at some cost to individual rights. Note that even Jacobson acknowledged that individual rights are not absolute. Laws passed by the states in this context must meet constitutional standards. For example, most scholars see Jacobson as constitutionally requiring that a state allow a medical exemption to immunization requirements.

But as long as they meet constitutional requirements, states may legislate or regulate to protect the public health. The requirements they put in place are not inconsistent with and do not violate informed consent. For example, quarantine laws are extremely coercive, imposing very strong limits on private autonomy – but they are constitutional, and no, they do not violate informed consent (pdf), either. Nor do school immunization requirements – even those without non-medical exemptions.

In other words, Adams’ argument, as you might imagine, is a smokescreen without any basis in law or a compelling basis in ethics. Not that this stops Adams from predicting a “medical civil war” in which parents will demand that doctors be arrested for felony assault. Now, I’m not a lawyer, nor do I even play one in the blogosphere, but even I recognize Adams’ legal reasoning as being—shall we say?—fantasy-based. He uses as part of his basis a law in Ohio that allows charging an HIV-positive person with “felonious assault” for having sex with someone without informing him or her of that positive HIV status, which makes me wonder why the same law doesn’t include people with hepatitis B or C, both of which are also potentially deadly diseases and far more likely to be transmitted in a single act of sexual intercourse than HIV. Adams also cites federal law:

According to federal law enforcement, a needle is categorized as a “weapon” in the context of a physical assault. For example, if you were to acquire the blood of an HIV-positive person, fill a syringe with it, then assault someone with that needle, you would not only be charged with a felony assault, but an assault with a deadly weapon (the needle).

Under Ohio law, for example, it is explained as: “…causing or attempting to cause serious harm with a deadly weapon or a firearm — referred to in the Ohio statutes as a ‘dangerous ordnance.'”

When administered without consent, a vaccine injection is a physical violation of a human body. The substance contained in the vaccine is provably harmful and, in some cases, even deadly. Under Ohio sentencing guidelines, an individual forcing a vaccination upon someone without their consent would be committing a “felonious assault with dangerous ordnance.”

Excuse me. I can’t go on; I need a break. I’m laughing too hard as I read the above passage again.

OK, I’m fine again.

Talk about some mental contortions! See Mikey shamelessly mix federal and state law (of a single state, yet) to come up with a new legal “theory” that lets him label vaccination as a “felonious assault with dangerous ordnance”! The rest of what flows from Adams’ assumptions is simply too dumb to be real, except that I know it is real, because Mike Adams is capable of such depths. Read his rationale for how doctors committing “vaccine violence” against children would earn 41 months in federal prison (or more). But be prepared. Steel yourself. If you have any critical thinking skills, knowledge of vaccines, and even a rudimentary knowledge of the law on par with what many educated people do, you will have a headache from tightly clenched teeth, which will lose some enamel from grinding. It all depends upon Adams’ considering needles on syringes containing vaccines as needles “containing a potentially dangerous substance” and such needles are considered a “dangerous weapon” by all law enforcement organizations. Based on this speculation, Adams cranks the crazy up to 11 and writes:

Under both federal and state law, parents who believe their children face the risk of imminent harm from a violent attack upon their bodies have every right to call 911 and request armed police officers come to their defense to stop the assault and arrest those attempting to commit those acts of violence.

I am now publicly predicting that, should SB 277 be signed into law, we will see a wave of California parents calling 911 to report their doctors while demanding the government press felony assault charges against medical personnel engaged in vaccine violence.

The sad thing is, I have no doubt that, should SB 277 pass (something that is still going to require a battle), there will be an antivaccinationist or two (or maybe even three) who will try what Adams suggests. My counter-prediction is that any police called for such a purpose will not take it seriously, to put it mildly. I can picture the 911 operator silently laughing and pointing at her headset, as if to say, “Get a load of this loon!” Even Adams seems to recognize that, predicting that the police won’t arrest the doctor or nurse giving the vaccine, but still asserts that “parents will retain the right of CIVIL prosecution of those doctors for violating their civil rights.” Yes, I’d love to see someone try that argument in front of a judge. The entertainment value would be enormous.

Meanwhile, the “not anti-vaccine” minion at the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism, Ken Heckenlively, wonders when they’ll “start shooting antivaxxers.”

Coming back to the frequent clutching of pearls exhibited by antivaccinationists in response to being called “antivaccine,” it’s hard to take them seriously when, to them, seemingly vaccination is the Holocaust. It’s the Oklahoma City bombing. It’s Auschwitz (complete with Dr. Josef Mengele’s horrific experiments), before which antivaccinationists view themselves as much victims as Jews in Germany during the Nazi regime. It’s Stalin. It’s the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. It’s a tsunami washing away everything before it.

And it’s a “violation” (i.e., rape) too.

And now it’s felonious assault, violence, an attack worthy of calling the police over. Adams might be what I like to colloquially call batshit crazy, but his rhetoric is useful because it tends to be the same as that of other antivaccinationists, just with the conspiracy mongering an crazy turned up to 11. If you look at others, you’ll find echoes of the same sort of rhetoric. Rare is the case when I see anyone on the “antivaccine” side publicly call out rhetoric like this, even when someone like Mike Adams likens vaccines to the Holocaust, sexual assault, human trafficking, or felonious assault. It is worth repeating that the reason, I suspect, is because most antivaccinationists are at least sympathetic to such analogies but don’t use them publicly because they know how inflammatory and despicably ridiculous those not steeped in the false victimhood of the antivaccine cult find them. Perhaps next time I will provide more examples, this time from antivaccine physicians, some of whom we’ve met before. After all, even a seemingly “mainstream” (in the antivaccine movement) group like the Autism Media Channel refers to “vaccine violence.”

Comments

  1. #1 Narad
    May 26, 2015

    Of course if you drink wine for it, the deadly alcohol cancels out its life enhancing effects. Or so they tell me.

    One might recall that the mere flavor of coffee “antidotes” homeopathics.

  2. #2 Denice Walter
    May 26, 2015

    Narad, that’s hilarious!

    So the coffee ice cream I just ate cancelled out all the qi enhancement achieved by the green tea I let steep until it’s
    somewhat thick.
    But woo estimates, I should be dead.

    According to Null, each drink causes the loss of “one million brain cells” ( sometimes it’s liver cells or both) which obviously explains his astonishing brilliance and our fellow/ sister minions’ fabled cognitive inadequacies**.
    I’ve even heard that Orac has been known to have a few.

    ** family characteristic we enjoy saying the exact opposite of what we mean

  3. #3 Denice Walter
    May 26, 2015

    That should be BY

  4. #4 Johnny
    127.0.0.1
    May 26, 2015

    One might recall that the mere flavor of coffee “antidotes” homeopathics.

    So the coffee ice cream I just ate cancelled out all the qi enhancement achieved by the green tea I let steep until it’s
    somewhat thick.

    Almost, but not totally, unrelated –
    http://xkcd.com/1526/

    Proper Johnny
    Accept no substitutes

  5. #5 THEO
    May 27, 2015

    Hairy Doctor It’s the worst kind of censorship, where information is suppressed by putting it out in public! MDs have authority in the view of many people. What they say is Gospel . If your Doctor tells you supplements are a waste of money and it doesn’t work it effects public opinion. Clearly all of yours. Think about the implications of nutritional supplements working? Which they do. It would destroy billions in revenue, turn upside down the entire medical establishment. Indict decades worth of pharmaceutical training. Its a major threat so of course doctors who promote supplements are quacks. Of course anyone who promotes this is a loon. It baffles me how blind you all are. This movement is happening grass roots we are not waiting for authority to tell us. Thats for the last hold out of deniers to wait for.

    Furthermore you rarely ever hear a great story about the benefits of nutritional supplements or the latest research about them on the evening news. Its all Pharmaceuticals. all the time. They spend huge money on advertising so why would the evening news contradict their clients? they wouldn’t. So just face it you are victims of the pharmaceutical industry. You are relics of the past that still think nutritional supplements have no science supporting them.

    My claim is that diet lifestyle and optimal nutrition can reverse a lot of health problems. not just pills

    http://terrywahls.com/about-the-wahls-
    protocol
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17875549

    .drperlmutter.

    Be curious and maybe you will find the truth its out there but you must seek it. It will not be served to you in a soundbite on CNN.

  6. #6 Gray Falcon
    May 27, 2015

    THEO- You don’t seek the truth. You just listen to soundbites. If you spent five minutes seeking the truth you’d know doctors do talk about nutrition.

  7. #7 Lawrence
    May 27, 2015

    I guess THEO missed the part where the Supplement Industry is a 30+ Billion dollar a year profit-driven powerhouse with the ability to bend the US Government to its will (for example, the orchestrated defeat of every attempt at decent regulation over the past 30 years).

  8. #8 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    May 27, 2015

    THEO, your original claim was that nutrition was a panacea, a cure for all illnesses. Native Americans had far healthier diets than their European counterparts. That didn’t save them from smallpox or measles, which cut them down by the million. I read of one case where a person with measles entered an Inuit village. Of the 99 inhabitants of the village, only one survived.
    A healthy diet is no guarantee against dying from infection.

  9. #9 Lawrence
    May 27, 2015

    Or our ancestors, from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, China, etc. etc. etc. who ate 100% organic foods, yet died in droves from Epidemics, had infant mortality rates of 50% or more, and barely lived more than 30 – 40 years, if they survived childhood.

  10. #10 shay
    May 27, 2015

    “Furthermore you rarely ever hear a great story about the benefits of nutritional supplements or the latest research about them on the evening news”

    Do I really have to point out the obvious here?

  11. #11 JGC
    May 27, 2015

    Think about the implications of nutritional supplements working? Which they do.

    And tyouevidence that tdo in fact work would be…what

  12. #12 JGC
    May 27, 2015

    Theo, your evidence that they do indeed work as you claim (“When diet is correct medicine is of no need”) would be what, exactly?

    Be specific.

    C’mon—you’ve had more than eight hours to ‘amass significant data”.

  13. #13 Denice Walter
    May 27, 2015

    Let’s be serious:
    even during the darkest days of the Great Recession ( c. 2008-2010+), a quick internet search illustrated that people in North America and Western Europe were still spending billions** on supplements and associated products. During that same period of time, so-called healthy food supermarkets grew by leaps and bounds while more recently, healthier fast food establishments have increased tremendously ( you know the names of these companies) Obviously people value these options. Did they just suddenly decide to eat in a more healthy fashion?

    Am I to assume that a news blackout about nutrition kept those poor struggling souls, hopelessly blinded by the agenda of the corporatocray, in the dark or, that perhaps the media might even be complicit in helping push food fads and nutrition myths in order to pad their own ratings?

    ** IIRC, slightly up in the US and slightly down in the UK –

  14. #14 Denice Walter
    May 27, 2015

    that should be CORPORATOCRACY

  15. #15 ann
    May 27, 2015

    My claim is that diet lifestyle and optimal nutrition can reverse a lot of health problems. not just pills

    Yes, it is.

    http://terrywahls.com/about-the-wahls-
    protocol

    And as the above shows, it’s a very popular claim, your intimations that its truth is being suppressed notwithstanding.

    The question is: On what evidence do you base it?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17875549

    OK. That study doesn’t show diet and lifestyle reversing a lot of health problems.

    There’s evidence suggesting that Omega-3 fatty acids have a modest anti-inflammatory effect. But that’s not what you’re claiming.

    .drperlmutter.

    Again, stipulated that it’s a very popular claim. People can make money off of it, even. Good money. Perlmutter is such a person. But he’s a claim-maker, not a claim-prover.

    And the question is: On what evidence is the claim based?

    Be curious and maybe you will find the truth its out there but you must seek it.

    Everybody on the damn thread who’s asked you for specifics is doing exactly that.

    It will not be served to you in a soundbite on CNN.

    That’s good, because I don’t watch TV barely at all.

  16. #16 THEO
    May 28, 2015

    @Lawrence
    (for example, the orchestrated defeat of every attempt at decent regulation over the past 30 years).

    They don’t need to be regulated they are SAFE. unlike the potions with side effects the pharmaceutical industry develops.

    “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, and again. There’s no free lunch with pharmaceuticals. We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that we can yank only one thread out of the spider web. When you pull it, the whole thing moves.

    When you expose your body to pharmaceutical grade chemical influence, it is forced to adjust.” Dr Brogan MD

    @ JGC is this the kind of evidence you cite and hold up as truth? your truth is based on profit motive .
    Peter C Gøtzsche
    Psychiatric drugs are responsible for the deaths of more than half a million people aged 65 and older each year in the Western world, as I show below.1 Their benefits would need to be colossal to justify this, but they are minimal.1 2

    http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2435

    @Grey I live the truth.

    @Denice the reason its growing is because it WORKS and its spreading word of mouth. Now if there was fair and balanced coverage of nutrition on the evening news and it was supported by your physician it would EXPLODE the only thing keeping a lid on it is the pharmaceutical industry Corporatacracy <——FACT

    Terry wahls story should be on the evening news. What harm is going to come from flowing her diet? NOTHING

    Not only does the PALEO diet help with MS its heals numerous other diseases utilized by Dr Mark Hyman. Countless testimonies of people being healed by food. Thats Evidence!

    Ann

    it’s a very popular claim, your intimations that its truth is being suppressed notwithstanding.

    The question is: On what evidence do you base it?

    Watch the evening news and see for yourself. Ask your doctor and see for yourself. Survey your friends and see for yourself

    “I ate breakfast last week with the president of a network news division and he told me that during non-election years, 70% of the advertising revenues for his news division come from pharmaceutical ads. And if you go on TV any night and watch the network news, you’ll see they become just a vehicle for selling pharmaceuticals. He also told me that he would fire a host who brought onto his station a guest who lost him a pharmaceutical account.” ~Kennedy

  17. #17 JP
    May 28, 2015

    They don’t need to be regulated they are SAFE. unlike the potions with side effects the pharmaceutical industry develops.

    Sure, it restores all your HP and makes you temporarily invincible, but it also makes you GLOW BLUE for like five minutes.

  18. #18 Gray Falcon
    May 28, 2015

    @THEO- You don’t “live the truth”. You just swallow every single lie you hear without a single thought.

  19. #19 Denice Walter
    May 28, 2015

    THEO, although I am definitely not Glenn Greenwald, ferreting out closely-guarded secrets, for some ungodly reason, I manage to dig up diverse nutritional claims on a daily basis and, in fact, I even discuss them and tell people where to access them in their original forms-
    mostly for sport.

    If this information is being actively suppressed by a grand coalition of government, corporations and the media, why am I, poor simple creature that I be, able to find a never ending supply of stories about natural health, phyto-nutritents, herbs, alternative treatments, brave maverick doctors, warrior mothers, energy medicine, soul psychology and whatnot?

    I mean it’s EASY.

  20. #20 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    May 28, 2015

    THEO:

    Not only does the PALEO diet help with MS its heals numerous other diseases utilized by Dr Mark Hyman. Countless testimonies of people being healed by food. Thats Evidence!

    Actually, no it isn’t. A testimonial, assuming it’s genuine and not made up by the people trying to sell you something, is the lowest form of evidence. All it is is someone’s subjective opinion.

  21. #21 Krebiozen
    May 28, 2015

    THEO,

    They don’t need to be regulated they are SAFE. unlike the potions with side effects the pharmaceutical industry develops.

    We don’t know if supplements are safe because they haven’t been put through the same rigorous testing that pharma drugs have been. When they are tested, we often find they are not safe at all, for example, supplemental calcium tablets that increase the risk of a heart attack by 30%, in the same ball park as Vioxx’s CV risk.

    “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, and again. There’s no free lunch with pharmaceuticals. We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that we can yank only one thread out of the spider web. When you pull it, the whole thing moves. When you expose your body to pharmaceutical grade chemical influence, it is forced to adjust.” Dr Brogan MD

    That’s a curious turn of phrase – “pharmaceutical grade” is a measure of purity, not strength. Brogan links to a paper reviewing the carcinogenicity of various psychiatric drugs that concludes that most of them are carcinogens. However, a closer look reveals that this is based on animal studies using huge doses, and evidence for carcinogenesis in humans is sparse at best. In some cases, fluoxetine for example, these drugs appear to show promise against cancer.

    Peter C Gøtzsche: “Psychiatric drugs are responsible for the deaths of more than half a million people aged 65 and older each year in the Western world, as I show below.[…]

    Here’s a more balanced look at Gøtzsche’s claims, which many disagree with. There may be some grounds for arguing that psychiatric drugs are overprescribed, but I suspect it’s another case of younger people not remembering the days before we had effective treatments. How bad could it have been before we had effective antidepressants and antipsychotics? [/sarcasm]

    I live the truth.

    No, you have simply been taken in by a slick and clever advertising campaign that cynically exploits your fear of illness and death.

  22. #22 Krebiozen
    May 28, 2015

    THEO,

    @Denice the reason its growing is because it WORKS and its spreading word of mouth.

    Looking at this study it seems that in the US the use of “nonvitamin, nonmineral dietary supplements” fell from 18.9% in 2002 to 17.7% in 2012. Also:

    Fish oil use among adults increased from 4.8% in 2007 to 7.8% in 2012. Probiotic or prebiotic use was four times as high in 2012 as it was in 2007 (1.6% and 0.4%, respectively). The use of melatonin more than doubled in use from 0.6% in 2007 to 1.3% in 2012. There was a decrease in use of glucosamine, chondroitin, or a combination pill from 2007 to 2012, from 3.2% to 2.6%. From 2007 to 2012, there was also a significant decline in the use of echinacea (1.3 percentage points).”

    That’s hardly a sign that the dams are bursting, as I have heard people claiming for the past 30 years or more. Fewer than 2% of people using pre or probiotics, despite them being advertised endlessly everywhere? The miracle cure for arthritis (glucosamine and chondroitin)falling out of favor? Fewer people using echincaea? Why are people losing faith in these miracles? Could it be that they don’t work?

    Now if there was fair and balanced coverage of nutrition on the evening news and it was supported by your physician it would EXPLODE the only thing keeping a lid on it is the pharmaceutical industry Corporatacracy <——FACT

    Why do you think the drug companies want to stop people buying supplements when they are often the ones manufacturing them? In 2007 “83 million adults spent $33.9 billion out-of-pocket on CAM”. Why would the drug companies marketing supplements be any more trustworthy than those marketing drugs? Look at Roche’s malfeasance in the 70s illegally inflating vitamin prices. If you have little faith in pharma drugs you should have zero faith in supplements.

  23. #23 justthestats
    May 29, 2015

    THEO:
    Now that you’ve had time to think about the fact that supplements can be patented, what do you think about the fact that they typically aren’t and they are typically not that well studied?

  24. #24 JGC
    May 29, 2015

    Watch the evening news and see for yourself. Ask your doctor and see for yourself. Survey your friends and see for yourself

    In other words “I got nothing–maybe you can find some where I’ve failed.”

  25. #25 shay
    May 29, 2015

    Watch the evening news and see for yourself.

    Wait…I thought there were no news stories about supplements because the media is in the pocket of Big Pharma.

  26. #26 Krebiozen
    May 29, 2015

    shay,
    It’ll be on the news just after the item on those FEMA camps that the UN built. You know, the ones they have been about to herd the US public into for the past few decades. That’ll be followed by the announcement that Bush and Blair are being impeached for war crimes.

  27. #27 Sia
    June 12, 2015

    Fine: Think of it like smoking or not-smoking.

    Nobody cares if you personally choose to smoke. You can expose yourself to all the risks you like.

    You don’t get to blow smoke in my face though – that’s forcing the risks of your activities on me. Second hand smoke is a thing.

    And you shouldn’t be smoking in schools, in lung cancer wards, etc. If you do, there will be consequences and people are right to get mad at you

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.