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.

Comments

  1. #1 Narad
    June 4, 2015

    Matt Hirschhorn is a friend and a patient

    I’ll bet (“Went to John B. Connally High School, Lives in Tomball, Texas”).

    I worked with my friend AV

    What’s that you say, Flouncy McFlouncerson? Has some other freak adopted a correspondingly fake name to carry one?

  2. #2 Narad
    June 4, 2015

    ^ “carry on”

  3. #3 herr doktor bimler
    June 4, 2015

    Steven Pinker’s book “The Language Instinct” […] which he wrote before he became convinced that he knows everything.

    I remain unconvinced that there was ever such a time.

  4. #4 MI Dawn
    June 4, 2015

    Not as common now, but Berton Rouech has in his Medical Detectives book (either the first or second, can’t find it right now) a great story called “A Pig from Jersey” where 1 man died and several others became very ill from eating undercooked or raw pork (trichinosis).

    So, Matt, what about that raw meat stuff?

  5. #5 herr doktor bimler
    June 4, 2015

    Berton Rouech has in his Medical Detectives book (either the first or second, can’t find it right now)

    In “Eleven Blue Men”, if memory serves.

  6. #6 Denice Walter
    June 4, 2015

    In other news..
    Mikey complains that the US media is entirely corrupt because of its ties to pharm
    BUT he has learned that there are a few brave journalists in the UK willing to tell the Truth about vaccine injury.
    Mike has discovered the Daily Mail.

  7. #7 Militant Agnostic
    Feng-Shui advisor for the Large Hadron Collider
    June 4, 2015

    Narad

    I’m not going to dig into regional variations, but my experience was just plural “y’all.”

    According to Bobby C of the No Religion Required Podcast, the apostrophe should go after the a. Only a Yankee would place it after the y.

  8. #8 Narad
    June 6, 2015

    According to Bobby C of the No Religion Required Podcast, the apostrophe should go after the a. Only a Yankee would place it after the y.

    Given the amount of contortionism required to defend this, it seems to me that the stronger argument is that there shouldn’t be any apostrophe at all.

  9. #9 Nianbo
    Perth, WA, Australia
    June 24, 2015

    Matt Hirschorn is a troll. Period.

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