It looks like my prediction about Patrick Swayze came true. Not that it was a stretch to foresee that the Woo-meister Supreme Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com would waste no time in violating the corpse of Patrick Swayze before he was even cold by using Swayze's death as an excuse to repeat once again his oft-repeated misinformation and lies about chemotherapy and "natural" therapies. After all, he did it before for Tony Snow, so why not Patrick Swayze? In fact, I strongly suspect that Adams had this rant written months ago, ready and waiting for Patrick Swayze's death. All he had to do then was to hit "post." So that's what he did yesterday, and what spewed forth from Adams' servers was a nauseating series of lies entitled Patrick Swayze dead at 57 after chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer.
I didn't originally want to spend a lot of time on this idiocy, but then it irritated me enough that I had to respond. What irritated me first was the title. Here's a hint, Mike: Patrick Swayze died of stage IV pancreatic cancer. Got that? It wasn't the chemotherapy that killed him. It was the cancer. Like a good alt-med maven, Adams confuses correlation with causation. Most, if not all, cancer patients have chemotherapy before the end. That does not mean the chemotherapy is what killed them. (There is the occasional exception--chemotherapy is not without risk, of course--but in general this is true.) There is a correlation, but not a causation. As usual, what Adams fails to note is that Swayze lived far longer than the average patient with stage IV pancreatic cancer, nearly 20 months versus a median survival of less than six months. True, given how horrific pancreatic cancer is, the chemotherapy that Swayze underwent probably only modestly prolonged his life, but for Adams to acknowledge that Swayze actually did quite well, at least as well as one can expect from a patient with the disease that he had, would undermine his belief that all chemotherapy is evil poison that does no good. If you want to get an idea to what ridiculous extreme Adams takes confusing correlation with causation, look at the pictures and the captions that he displays:
Truly, the despicable, willful stupid. It burns. In fact, there's so much stupid there that I can only cherry pick some of the most egregiously nasty misinformation and lies. To do more would risk the proverbial massive wave of neuronal apoptosis from the anti-reason waves emanating from my computer screen every time I look at Mike Adams' website.
After a string of paragraphs claiming that "the cancer industry" has killed untold celebrities and lamenting how Swayze chose chemotherapy over "natural" cures, Adams gets to the meat of his claims:
Of course, the cancer industry takes no responsibility for his death. Drug companies and cancer docs never accept responsibility for the way their poisonous treatments harm (and often kill) many fine people.
Had Patrick Swayze's pancreatic cancer gone away, doctors would have hailed chemotherapy as the genius treatment that saved Swayze's life. But chemotherapy has never healed anyone of cancer. Not once in the history of medicine. And when people die after being poisoned by chemotherapy, the oncologists and conventional medical doctors just shrug and say ridiculous things like, "The cancer was too far along" or "He didn't fight it hard enough."
Actually, it's the quacks that Adams loves so much who usually blame the patient. Either the patient brought the disease on himself by engaging in a poor lifestyle, or the reason the "cure" didn't work is because the patient either didn't follow the protocol to the letter or didn't believe in it strongly enough. Personally, I've never seen an oncologist blame a patient's death on that patient's not having fought it hard enough. Oncologists just don't talk that way.
More interesting to me is Adams' claim that chemotherapy has never--never, he says--healed anyone of cancer, "not once in the history of medicine."
Uh, Mike, ever hear of Lance Armstrong? He had testicular cancer. Not only that, but it was stage IV disease, with metastases to lung and brain. Guess what? Chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation cured him of his cancer, and he's been cancer-free for 13 years. (Never deal in absolutes; you'll end up looking the fool.) How about Daniel Hauser? His chemotherapy has rapidly eliminated his Hodgkin's lymphoma, and he's on track to survive his cancer and live a relatively normal life. Adams is, of course, too deluded ever to accept it, but in fact chemotherapy "cures" thousands upon thousands of patients with cancer each and every year. True, against metastatic solid tumors like pancreatic cancer, chemotherapy all too often doesn't do much good in terms of prolonging survival (testicular cancer is an exception to that rule of thumb), but it can do quite a bit of good in terms of palliation, depending on the specific cancer.
Of course, the reason that chemotherapy doesn't cure is obvious--if you're an utter loon like Adams:
"I want to last until they find a cure, which means I'd better get a fire under it," Swayze said in a highly-publicized interview with ABC's Barbara Walters. No one apparently told Swayze the cancer industry isn't looking for a cure. They're looking for more business from more patients, and a genuine "cure" for cancer is flatly incompatible with the industry's business interests.
Actually, logic, reason, and science are flatly incompatible with Mike Adams' brain. For one thing, there are already "cures" for a number of cancers in the form of chemotherapy regimens. Adams falls for the same simplification that all too many people believe, namely that cancer is a single disease with a single cure. There is no "cure for cancer." There likely will never be a "cure for cancer." There are, however, cures for cancers, and there likely will be more cures for cancers. For another thing, Adams assumes that since scientific medicine can't cure cancer 100% of the time, it never does. To him, it's black or white, all or nothing thinking. Finally, his conspiratorial mindset prevents him from realizing that any scientist who found the cure for a killer cancer like pancreatic cancer would be instantly famous--and possibly even instantly rich. Certainly such a person could be on the track for a Nobel Prize.
Adams owes me a new irony meter for this next passage. It fried that sucker into a molten pile of quivering, sparking, sizzling goo:
Could Patrick Swayze have saved his own life with natural medicine? Absolutely. Without question. Even late-stage pancreatic cancer can be reversed (yes, reversed) with full-on naturopathic treatments involving Chinese herbal medicine, deep body detoxification that includes sweat saunas and colon cleansing, radical changes in diet from "dead" foods to "live" foods, a healthy dose of vitamin D and the daily consumption of raw anti-cancer living juices made from fresh, organic produce like cabbage, broccoli and garlic.
Many people, of course, aren't willing to engage in these lifestyle changes in order to save their own lives, but for those who are, the results are astounding. I've personally met numerous people who told me their personal stories of reversing cancer (even late-stage liver cancer) by turning to natural medicine. I've met all kinds of people who once had cancer and are now completely cured of cancer after making the very simple lifestyle changes espoused here on NaturalNews.com. And yet, at the same time, I've never met a person who was cured by cancer with chemotherapy. Not a single one. Never even heard of such a person. They don't exist. Even the cancer industry will tell you their "cure rate" is zero (because they don't believe cancer can ever be cured).
Note how early in the article, Adams chastises oncologists for blaming the patient for "not fighting hard enough" and using that as an excuse for failure. So what does Adams do? In essence he blames patients for not being "willing to engage in these lifestyle changes in order to save their own lives." Moreover, he clearly views those who do as the "chosen few," who are in marked contrast with the sheeple who choose chemotherapy, whom Adams describes thusly:
The advantage with choosing chemotherapy, however, is that you don't have to change your eating habits or think outside the box. Your doctor will tell you what to do, what pills to take, what questions to stop asking, etc., and he won't even request that you stop eating those cancer-causing hot dogs and breakfast sausages which have been shown to significantly increase your risk of pancreatic cancer.
In other words, the "chosen few" have the will to do what needs to be done, and everyone else is too lazy or stupid to do so. To Adams, they prefer to be told what to do and are too weak to change their ways. The rest of Adams' article follows the standard litany of ranting against big pharma and the "cancer industry" and touting "natural cures." Adams' favorites include the Gerson therapy, traditional Chinese medicine, "live foods," "detoxing" and colon cleansing, and a veritable panoply of woo. That I expected. It's standard issue Mike Adams. What I didn't expect was this:
By the way, I don't usually do this, but I'd like to make a comment here related to those who follow a religious practice. In almost every major world religion, it is considered a sin to desecrate your own body. Many religions consider it sinful to commit suicide, for example. In Judaism, people who mark their bodies with tattoos are considered to be in violation of the Torah ("You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord" - Leviticus 19:28), and those who commit suicide may be denied burial in a Jewish cemetery.
Under Islamic law, self-mutilation of any kind is also forbidden, including tattoos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tattooing). Under Christian principles, the body is considered a "temple" (a church) which must be honored as a reflection of God (http://www.mybodyhistemple.com).
My question to those who follow any major religion -- and who may also be considering chemotherapy -- is simply this: What would God think about you poisoning your God-given body with deadly chemicals?
He even threatens you with hellfire:
That's why chemotherapy isn't just bad for your immune system and bad for your body; it's also bad for your soul. Whether you believe in the Pearly Gates or some other version of an afterlife, there's no question that showing up on Judgment Day after having died from chemotherapy is not a comfortable episode of spiritual scrutiny. If God, in a booming voice, asks, "I gave you a perfect body, in my own image. What did you choose to do with it?" And if you answer, "Well, I smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, I swore off all the natural medicine that you provided us, and I allowed my body temple to be injected and destroyed with man-made toxic chemicals that killed me and brought me here," chances are you're not going to find yourself in God's favor.
Wow. Just wow. If you don't follow Adams' advice, God is going to send you straight to hell when you die. Why? Because you contaminated the purity of your precious bodily fluids, that's why! I always thought that Poe's law meant that it's difficult to tell the difference between fundamentalism and a parody of fundamentalism, but maybe that's wrong. Maybe POE stands for purity of essence. (The movie allusion will come to you eventually.) How loony is that? Well, it is Mike Adams we're talking about here. Indeed, he even invokes the specter of atheistic doctors:
Then again, most conventional cancer doctors don't believe in God anyway. They believe in chemicals. At least, they believe in them for YOU, but not necessarily for themselves. Most oncologist, it turns out, would never subject themselves to chemotherapy.
Holy crap! It's those evil atheistic doctors pushing chemotherapy that are at the root of all medical evil, don'tcha know? Of course, Adams is utterly ignorant. In fact, there's good evidence that physicians are at least as religious as a group as the general population and, in fact, may even be more religious. That's part of the reason why they seem to be so easily duped by religious pseudoscience like "intelligent design creationism." Everybody's favorite creationist neurosurgeon comes to mind as a sterling example.
Also, the oft-parroted claim that the vast majority of oncologists would never subject themselves to chemotherapy is, of course, one of those "unsinkable rubber duck" myths of the alt-med movement (apologies to the great James Randi). It's utter nonsense, an urban myth based on a small study that was presented over 20 years ago at a meeting and never published in a peer reviewed journal--and that only dealt with one chemtherapy agent for one disease. Yet Adams repeats the lie yet again, and the legend lives on, to be repeated on alt-med site after alt-med site, immune to evidence and oblivious to its rather inauspicious origin. Not that he cares. It fits his world view; so it must be true.
I have a different take on the matter of whether God, if he exists, would want you to let doctors treat you with chemotherapy if you were ever unfortunate enough to develop cancer. If you believe in God, ask yourself: Why would God give humans this amazing ability to reason and investigate the world through science, an ability that has lead to remarkable treatments for once incurable diseases if he didn't want you to use them? That's what wouldn't make sense.
In a way, although it was one of the most unethical clinical trials of the last 50 years, easily as unethical as the Tuskegee syphilis study, I am glad that the results of the study of the Gonzalez protocol for pancreatic cancer were revealed recently. That is exactly the sort of quackery that Mike Adams pushes, driven by the same pseudoscience that he repeats over and over. Now that Gonzalez has responded, I might have to take a look into the mind of a different woo lover than Adams, one who is considered almost respectable.
Yes, I think I may do that tomorrow.
- Log in to post comments
Mike Adams is one of the more despicable creatures to slither through the cesspool of snake oil salesmen.
I'm trying very hard not to hope he someday develops stage IV pancreatic cancer, or something equally horrible.
My doctor constantly harps on me about eating a healthy diet. I commented yesterday in another post about how I get tired of hearing the doctors on Dr Radio constantly go on and on about eating healthily. Where in the world does he get this stupid strawman that dcotrs won't "request" that you stop eating hot dogs and breakfast sausages?
Granted, they aren't doing it because such things are linked to pancreatic cancer (really? I'd like to see that link...), but that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Adams is clearly talking to the alt-med crowd, who would be willing to believe this. OTOH, anyone who has actually been to a doctor knows it's bullshit.
Speaking of religion, how did that one commandment about lying go again?
in a sane, moderate world, rants like Adams' one here would only serve to instantly discredit anything else the ranter might ever say.
in a sane world. i'm more pessimistic about this one.
My mother-in-law died in July of cancer of the bile ducts. She refused chemotherapy. By Adams's argument she should still be alive. Why isn't she?
I was cured of Hodgkin's Lymphoma by chemotherapy.
Healthy living would not have avoided it or made it go away, as it was almost certainly caused by the Epstein Barr virus.
I would, however, recommend anyone undergoing chemotherapy to make sure their vitamin d levels are at an optimum level. There is strong evidence, in the medical literature, that vitamin d is used by the innate immune system. During chemotherapy the active immune system takes a hammering (Hodgkin's is a cancer of the B immune cells), and you need any extra immunity you can get.
Mike Adams would be ever so much more convincing if he'd just name all those scads of people who come up to him with news of their cures of incurable cancer with natural/alternative remedies.
And since he loves glomming onto celebrity cancer cases so much, who are all those celebrities who've beaten cancer with diet and magical supplements? Well, let's see - Steve McQueen, with laetrile! Oops, bad example. How about...Coretta Scott King! She went to a Tijuana clinic too, and was cured, and...uh-oh, better forget that one too.
C'mon Mike, give us that list of celebrity cures.
It's people like this spreading such blatant misinformation that drive me towards a degree in public health education. I'm only sorry that I can't finish it faster.
For once, David, I have to agree with you on this. I have no words to describe how appalled I am at Mike Adam's actions. None.
Allow me a moment to be just as disgusted as you are about this.
I am Jewish. Several of my relatives have suffered from cancer. Not one of them refused conventional treatment. Their religion made them choose the most effective treatments; it is written in Deuteromy 30:19: 'So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants.'
We may be Jews Mr Adams, but we're by no means idiots.
My husband died within 2mos with chemo, my cousin died in 5 mos with chemo, and several other pancreatic patients we have met and come to love over the years have died with chemo or without any treatment at all within 2-25 mos. Chemo didnt kill Patrick, and it probably didnt help him either. His body probably would have lasted 20mos even if he did nothing. I will say, my loved ones went through excruciating pain which was made much worse with chemo. Pain management alone proved to be the best treatment for most. I would not call a few added months a 'major accomplishment' for chemo as someone posted on the blog about the Gonzalez treatment. They are definitely both failures for this type of cancer.
Well, it didn't take very long at all did it?
Has he no sense of decency? Does he actually believe his BS? Oh, hang on, I forgot the atheist jibe, so yes, he probably thinks he's right.
JH
Well, it didn't take very long at all did it?
Just visited the hideous site, and read some of the most deluded rubbish ever. And that was the comments. They really are out there. Blaming Patrick's past drinking, smoking, diet. "Cancer is not a disease, it's the body's last resort", caught my attention. Strange folks indeed.
JH
I think I heard President Obama call Mike Adams a "jackass" yesterday.
didn't believe in it strongly enough
I hate faith healers of all persuasions.
I will join in with Pete @ #6. Hello Mr. Adams, my name is Tim and chemotherapy cured me of my Stage III Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Cured. A PET scan after 12 courses of chemotherapy showed no evidence of disease and follow-on CT scans have confirmed that I am still disease free. Asshole.
I'm pretty certain chemo and radiotherapy can be beneficial to a degree with certain kinds of cancer. This would vary from highly effective in promoting a complete cure, through prolonging life by months or years, through pretty ineffectual. They may also cause a lot of pain and damage, undermining quality of life, or they may not. There are statistics. So before accepting the offer of chemo or radiotherapy, I'd sure want to have a close look at the statistics for my cancer and condition. And I'd want to do my own instinctive cost-benefit analysis. The problem is that oncologists have got to do what oncologists do. You may well be offered these forms of treatment when the benefit is dubious.
consumption of raw anti-cancer living juices made from fresh, organic produce
Am I the only one who thought that sounded kind of ... disgusting?
My stepfather came down with testicular cancer, which is imminently curable with chemo. In his case, the chemo did, in fact, kill him. It depressed his immune system so much that an opportunistic infection set in and killed him pretty quickly. We were all shocked, and the look on the oncologist's face was that of utter despondency. He should have lived.
Knowing that, what would I do if I came down with the same cancer? I'd go for chemo, of course -- the same regimen of the same chemo that he took, if that's what the doctor suggested. Medicine is math -- you're fighting probabilities, rolling the dice. Though I morn for him every day, my stepfather knew what he was doing when he rolled the dice. When they came up snake-eyes it sucked, but that doesn't mean the treatment isn't much better overall than the alternatives.
And if some asshole had talked him into the Gonzales "treatment", giving him several months of agony and poor quality of life (and a painful death), I'd be in prison right now.
Well-done, Orac!
It depends. When my grandfather believed he probably had pancreatic cancer (due to the symptoms, which he knew through his years of medical practice which included general surgery in a remote area where oncologists were hard to come by), he decided not to even bother getting a biopsy to confirm his suspicions. He was over 90, and felt that he had lived a good life, and passionately hated the idea of being dependent on other people. So he made arrangements for hospice care, finalized his will, and prepared for the end.
For him, that was definitely the right choice. But I think I, personally, at my current age (34) would choose chemo. This is because I have two small children, and even one more *day* with them would be precious, even if I had to buy it through pain. As long as I was conscious enough to appreciate their presence, I would be willing to suffer the pain.
But that's just it -- it's very personal. I think pancreatic cancer is one of those cancers where, if it's already advanced (and it usually is), it's perfectly valid to prefer palliative care.
Note: surgery and chemo can both be part of palliative care. In that case, the idea is not to completely kill all the cancer cells (because that's hopeless anyway) but just to beat them back a bit so they're not causing so many problems. I remember when my grandmother-in-law was dying, the doctors treated her pneumonia. Why? It would've hastened her death, and thus could be a mercy! Well, no, actually. She was dependent on a respirator, so letting her go would be easy and could happen anytime. The only reason they were treating her pneumonia with antibiotics was to make her more comfortable while she and the family came to grips with the situation and decided what to do.
While oncologists don't directly blame the patient for insufficient response to therapy, as a senior editor on a cancer journal I often had to change a phrase in manuscripts that implied the same thing: "... n percent of the patients failed treatment ..." I would always revise it to "... the treatment was not successful in n percent of the patients ..." In general, I think this was habit, learned from the author(s)' mentors and from reading older papers.
I wonder if Mike Adams would let you amputate a limb in the event of gangrene or diabetes complications?
"consumption of raw anti-cancer living juices made from fresh, organic produce
Am I the only one who thought that sounded kind of ... disgusting?"
I wasn't sure if he was talking about V-8 Juice or making up something in a Bass-O-Matic, either.
As with other quackoid annoyances (like the explosive diarrhea of misinformation sprayed by certain antivaxers), it helps if you can see the humor in their blatherings.
For instance, in Mike Adams' latest screed (on swine flu vaccine approval by the FDA), he suggests that the disease is nothing to be concerned about:
"Even for those who got sick, virtually everyone survived the sickness. After a few days of extra rest in bed (and hopefully some nutritional supplementation), they were able to kick the virus and return to normal life. This is all a normal part of beating any flu."
See, no big deal - just another case of Big Pharma scaremongering to make lots of money.
Except right on the same page Mike Adams is advertising his "Swine Flu Advanced Preparedness Course", consisting of four audio CDs for the low low price of $29 (shipping extra?). I'm a little confused why I need to shell out $29 to protect myself from a little ol' flu bug that's part of normal living, but I'm sure Mikey's devotees just lap this stuff up.
The hypocrisy does indeed burn - but a little bloodroot salve or maybe a cup of oleander tea should fix that pronto.
Every individual who was breast fed during the 19th century is dead. Armed with this shocking bit of information, I think it only appropriate that Adams undertake an aggressive crusade to discourage mothers from breast-feeding - and thus, killing - their babies. Get right on it, Mike!
One caveat: Nobody gets out alive. Life is terminal. Spread the word. :-)
Doesn't Adams know that juicing live vegetables is MURDER?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4
The Gonzalez study is, of course, irrelevant. It violated the key tenet of all alt-reality doctrines: Like the Invisible Boy [1], it only works if you don't look (or at least keep records.)
What we have here is Schroedinger's Protocol: the patients all live until you look in the box -- then they die.
And, yes, you're welcome to use "Schroedinger's Protocolâ¢" in the future.
[1] Movie reference back atcha
I've never understood this thing about "live" vegetables. I had a nephew who thought he only ate "live," until I pointed out to him that the second his food was pulled from its stem it was dead. Even if someone ate it straight from the vine -- it would be dead upon entering the mouth. Is there something I'm not seeing here?
Mike Adams has a brain? Who would have guessed?
Perhaps Mike Adams should ponder on this one:
http://bible.oremus.org/?version=nrsv&passage=Mark+7:1-8,14-15,21-23
Mr. Adams points out, and quite correctly, that if you only use Western Medicine you will die. Perhaps it will take longer than if you use natural and eastern medicine, but you will die.
Here's the thing I don't get about the "doctors don't do chemo" meme. Chemo isn't exactly recreational. People don't do chemo the way they might say do lines of cocaine. Most doctors aren't doing chemo because they don't need it. (I know that's not exactly what Adams is saying, but if they can distort, so can I, right?)
ntsc:
So you will die quicker if you use "Western" stuff like homeopathy (Germany) and get enough vitamin C (England)... but live longer if you use statins, get the DTaP and chicken pox vaccines (all developed in Japan).
Do I have that right?
Could you also explain how colon cleansings are both "eastern" and "natural"? That is one thing I just don't get.
"I've never understood this thing about "live" vegetables. I had a nephew who thought he only ate "live," until I pointed out to him that the second his food was pulled from its stem it was dead. Even if someone ate it straight from the vine -- it would be dead upon entering the mouth. Is there something I'm not seeing here?"
Depends on what you mean by 'dead'. They'd still be plenty of cells alive if it came straight off the vine and for a good while afterwards.
I'm going to pile on and call Adams a despicable asshole and give him a nice big conundrum to explain: Bill Hicks.
Yeah, I know, Mike will just trot out the blame-the-victim crap and cite Hicks' previous smoking & drinking and completely ignore that, once diagnosed, Hicks did essentially everything Adams suggests and still died.
Pancreatic cancer is an evil, miserable bitch. I've lost one friend to it already and I'm in no mood to coddle the likes of Adams. Asshole.
WTF are "raw anti-cancer living juices" - living juices? Bacterial mats? Do I need to drink the juice, or will it flow down my throat on it's own, and can I feel it moving? Will it make it's own way back up? Will it breed in my stomach, or will I hear it's death scream as my digestive secrections kill it slowly?
Hmm, actually, that does give some ideas for a sci-fi/horror story, along the lines of "The Stuff"
Chris - "colon cleansing" seems to have originated in Egypt approx 1500 BCE, from what I have been able to read. So, I think mid-eastern might be more correct, but then it won't have the cachet of mysticism and exoticism that the East has for these people. Anything magical has to come from some other culture, or else it isn't worth much (except for a few of those "ancient, natural" cures. It's a new age/woo thing.
Mr. Adams doesn't get out much, does he?
I worked at a cancer center with two very caring and bright oncologists. Then one of them was diagnosed with cancer.
He not only had chemo, he participated in a study on new treatments for this particular cancer, which involved a novel way of irradiating the tumor in addition to chemotherapy.
This doctor not only used radiation and chemo, he sought it out. I think this is how most (if not nearly 100%) oncology docs would act.
He was already loved by his patients, but I think his experience also gave him a more intimate rapport with his patients.
So, Mike Adams...he needs to expand his social circle or something. Holy moly, how can he live in the world, and ignore what's happening every day around him? I know, I know...but still, people can be so nuts...
Thanks, Badger3k, for telling me where colon cleansing comes from. Though I still can't figure out why squirting fluid up the wrong way to force stuff out of the colon is "natural".
You will note that I don't care much for the "this is western" and "that is eastern" mindset. It is goofy to think that there is no actual modern medical research going on outside Europe and North America (these folks also have trouble remembering there are people living south of the Equator).
It just comes down to this: If they don't tell the lies, then they can't sell their stuff. They're just trying to help the economy (and themselves).
Otherwise known as orientalism.
Dangerous Bacon @25...
As luck would have it, I just whipped up some iced oleander tea, it's not really bad...just a bit of su
Elderly people seem to become more frail, as more grandchildren, and especially great-grandchildren, come along. This clearly shows, according to Mike Adams' logic, that grandchildren are the cause of their grandparents' death.
Lessee, my father was a cancer researcher. A loved one developed cancer. Did he send the loved one to an alt-med practitioner? No, he helped her through surgery and chemo. She died anyway, but it seems likely that the surgery and early chemo prolonged her life for at least a year.
Of course, I've told this story before.
@ 29 Trishy
Most of them are not dead. You can take small slices and see many processes that go on in the cells with a microscope. And you can take cells from an uprooted plant or clippings, slice them up, put them into the proper tissue culture [with the right hormones] and you will generate clones of the original plant.
And Newsweek on the expense of end-of-life-care
Purity of essence FTW! Now I can just re-read all Mike Adams' tripe you quoted, imagining it as a Dr Strangelove monologue. Beautiful. 8)
And as for Mike Adams... Dick. >_<
Yeah, the cells will keep going for quite some time after the part of the plant is cut. It's really pretty cool to see under a microscope. It's also what helps keep fruits and veggies fresh after picking, if the cells all died immediately they would rot very fast.
Of course that tiny fact doesn't make the "live" foods any better for you. The human stomach is not a pleasant environment for cells and if they are alive when they reach there they won't be for long.
This guy Adams would be a harmless crank if it were not for the fact his quackery has the potential to get people killed.
As it can get people killed, it makes Adams dangerous.
A fool with a gun not only doesn't hit the target he can be a hazard to innocent people.
Olivia Newton~John had breast cancer. Now cancer free for 15 years thanks to chemo!
Mike Adams is a criminal. He is just like the AIDS Denialists that not only scream that ARV's kill, but they also CAUSE the disease!
May I wish a "pox" on them all?
JTD
So is the alt-med arguement that their mumbo-jumbo was curing cancer before chemo & real medicine were developed?
And if so, why did medicine ever need to search for a cure?
Chris @ 40 - I have no idea either how water up the butt is "natural" either. Maybe he uses his "living juice"...ok, I'll stop there. Too much information, I think.
I have a friend whose relatives do the cleansing thing every few months. He did it once. That was enough.
If this quack ever develops cancer, I wonder if he would choose his own death sentence by taking the snake oil...
Probably not... he would accept chemo/rad plus a miracle enema that might disempact all the BS in his head.
Hmm... He makes extraordinary claims yet offers no evidence. He requires your email to read about the "important" information he writes about. He talks about the how western medicine "covers up" real secrets because of money, yet he has a lot of stuff for you to buy. From what I gathered, he is or was involved in some sort of MLM program.
It seems he has an interest in money also.
J Todd DeShong @ 50: Mike Adams IS one of those AIDS denialists, so far as I know; at the very least, he is sympathetic to the AIDS-denialist cause, given that he has supported plenty of virus-denialist articles and posts at his site.
He's a young-earth creationist as well, so I can't say that I found it *that* shocking for the God-will-condemn-you rubbish to creep in.
FITW
It's only an anecdote, but my dad was diagnosed with colon cancer about five years ago. He got an operation followed by both chemotherapy and radiation treatment. He is still alive and just celebrated his 83rd birthday.
The post-operation biopsy showed two types of cancer (I think there was only one cell of the second type), but the last follow-up test I heard about found no cancer.
I have gotten two colonoscopies in the last 17 years and plan to get another one in a few years. (They're no fun, but not as bad as my first spinal tap.)
The stats has been out for a while that you will live a lot longer without chemo.
Unless you must or choose to belong to the tribe of the high priests of medicine giving all your powers away to allopathic medicine.
Come on intelligent and not so intelligence, the medical model has been doing chemo for almost a century and continue to willfully or unwittingly suppress real cures for treatments, cause treatments are worth billions but hey you have to pollute the people, get them sick by vaccinating them first. Wake up and stay healthy.
Oh, really? Can you provide the citations that show you will live a lot longer without chemotherapy?
I didn't think so.
WH Lindemann @57
I suppose if I don't have cancer I will live longer without chemo. You have no stats on the other scenario.
Almost everyone who refers to science based medicine as allopathic has put their 'tribal faith' in homeopathic nonsense. Talk about scams.
If you have a non-chemo cure for cancer, prove it. As for your anti-vax reference, you are now officially part of a group so stupid, that the future survival of the human race may be in doubt. In the short term, I hope it's your kids who get polio, mumps, measles and whooping cough, not others affected by the loss of herd immunity. I hope it's your family that suffers through this and every other flu and sickness science has worked to protect you from. Keep taking your vitamins and making the richest urine on the planet.
You and your kind should be held up as a warning to others: "This is what happens when history and science education fails."
"Adams falls for the same simplification that all too many people believe, namely that cancer is a single disease with a single cure."
Time was, "fever" was an illness in its own right.
So, if doctors want to cure you, they offer you all these drugs and things. If you refuse, they may not agree, but they shrug their shoulders and mutter something about free will, right?
If alties want to cure you, they offer to shove coffee up your ass, brush your skin, and have you swallow 150 pills a day. If you refuse, they will get angry, throw a strompy fit, call you all manner of names, curse you, and defamatory articles will be written about you.
Do I have this right so far?
Alt-med people like to enjoy the collective delusion that they are the only ones in the entire world who are exercising, modifying their diets, and choosing nutritious foods over junk food. They also believe that their "doctors" (ok, quacks) are the only "doctors" in the world who recommend such changes and actively work to prevent disease.
I just had my yearly physical two days ago. My doctor lectured me for ten minutes about getting more exercise and eating well. On the plus side, I had lost fifteen pounds in the last year. On the minus side, my inactivity was driving my triglycerides up. He gave me a flu shot (disease prevention!) and drew some blood to monitor my cholesterol and other potential trouble spots.
Why do alt-med folks think the MDs aren't doing this kind of stuff? Why do they think people like me aren't losing weight and slowly changing our habits? Is it because we're being moderate about it instead of going off the colonic irrigation and total diet modification deep end?
Rebecca
As someone said earlier, it is a genetic crap shoot. You roll the dice and play the odds. Those odds are in favor of science but either way the house always wins in the end.
If you choose not to take a doctor's advice, then you reduce the odds of a successful outcome. When you choose to take a woo peddler's advice, you may reduce your odds still further and you will certainly ante up more for the pleasure.
The anti-vax crowd takes this gambling analogy even farther by reducing everyone's odds (herd immunity). No choice is a lock. Fully vaccinated people sometime get sick. Some un-vaccinated people remain disease free. I'd still play the much better odds and vaccinate.
Chemo has cured (OK, stopped from killing) my Father-in-law TWICE. Once testicular, once colon.
I'm prepared to bet there are people out there who have had three different cancers stopped by chemo.
And, of course, his doctors lecture him mercilessly on diet and exercise.
I am a Hodkings Lymphoma survivor.I was diagnosted with stage IIA Hodking lymphoma age 22.I took 6 cycles of chemo (one regiment of AVDB chemo) every 15 days for 6 months.I am cancer free since then.I am 31 now.If I didnt take the chemo and bought the crap of the quacks instead I wouldnt be alive today.
So is the alt-med arguement that their mumbo-jumbo was curing cancer before chemo & real medicine were developed?
And if so, why did medicine ever need to search for a cure?
I keep asking much the same thing of anti-vaxers. If measles, mumps etc are just harmless infections that don't do any lasting damage - why was there any need to develop vaccines in the first place?
When I get an answer, I'll send up my herd of flying pigs to let everybody know....
Expect more evil-minded nonsense about Mary Travers.
Also, as a fellow Michigander, I'd be interested in Orac's views of Ernie Harwell's very dignified approach to his cancer.
My father in law has significantly prolonged his life with chemo, thank you very much.
Adams' religious rantings about not using modern medicine to "sully" one's body remind me of the parable of the man in the flood who sat on his roof, refusing all help from people with cars (before the flood started), boats, and helicopters, saying "God will take care of me". When he inevitably drowns, he asks God, "why didn't you take care of me?" and God replies "I sent you a car, a boat, and a helicopter. What more do you want?!".
When Adams comes before his God, I imagine he'll have a slightly different reception than the one he was expecting.
Despite the breast cancer having metastesized to the lymph nodes, radiation treatment and a mastectomy as soon as the cancer was discovered, and chemo follow-up kept my mother alive for over 20 years with no return of the cancer.
That and the fact she was one tough old bat :-)
If I ever (God forbid) develop cancer, I'll go for chemo like a shot, if that's what the oncologist recommends.
because Big Pharma(tm) is full of evil, evil people who want to hurt kids and make big profits off the process.
keep asking that question, but run a betting pool on how long it'll be before you get that answer on the side. bet on low estimates.
Trishy, when I grew vegetables, I would invite people to have the freshest vegetables in the world. The way to do that is to take a bite out of the vegetable while it is still on the vine. You can't get fresher than that, unless you swallow a watermelon seed and it grows a watermelon in your stomach ;).
I think the use of water or coffee for colon flushes is a vain attempt to quench the burning stupidity. Even that they are doing wrong.
I may be giving too much credit to Mike and his fellow alties -- but could part of the confusion come from a historical relcutance on the part of doctors to say "cancer is cured"? I seem to hear far more "It's in remission" than "it is cured".
Could this feed the "chemo doesn't cure cancer" canard?
Wow, talking about harsh. Patrick Swayze is loved by many & always will be. He is a legend and always will be. This "Mike Adam" or whatever, I didn't even know he existed until I read this. He is pretty much a sorry excuse for a human being with no compassion whatsoever.
Patrick was amazing & did a GREAT job during his treatment. The average that a person stays alive in the last stage is 4-6 month's. Patrick made it 20 months, he is amazing.
Some people just give up, Patrick didn't. He wasn't in denial about it, he faced reality. But, he didn't let it knock him down. He didn't stop living.
He and Lisa (his wife) and family...his friends, they were all amazing through this.
"Mike": or whatever your name is, maybe you should think about what people are going through truly, before you judge & attack so harshly. God is not smiling down on your behavior or attitude but I'm sure he was with Patrick. Also, "Mike" sometimes as human beings when we ourselves are in the wrong or are attacking others, God will teach us "lessons" by putting us through challenges and trials. Be careful how you treat others, God may give you a test to try to pass. And....to be honest...I'm not so sure you would be as strong as Patrick was.
Mike, people like you are also in my prayers. Its sad really your attitude, I feel bad for you.
PATRICK SWAYZE A LEGEND & LOVED ALWAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*raises hand*
Hi, my name is Kristin, and I'm too am Hodgkins lymphoma survivor, stage IIIa. I went through eight months of ABVD treatment, and so far have been in remission for over 18 months. Colour me surprised to hear I don't exist!
But maybe I shouldn't be so surprised, as apparently my mother doesn't exist either. She underwent surgery, radiation, chemo and anti-estrogen treatment for her breast cancer (metastasised to 18 out of 20 lymph nodes) and is still very much alive and kicking 13 years later.
It never ceases to amaze me the sheer and utter idiocy these crank magnets utter with straight faces, and the abominable hypocrisy they spout. Have they no shame? Oh, wait, we know the answer to that one. To go through life so completely removed from all empathy and rationality... I can't imagine it. It is, for lack of a better term, manifestation of evil.
Kristin,
congrats to you and your "invisible, non-existant" mom. Evidently Barbara, the America's Got Talent finalist who is also a Hodkins lymphoma survivor, is also a mirage :P Oh, and other cancer survivors I know also don't exist.
The question that plagues me about people who lie about facts and reality is -- are they that divorced from reality, or do they *know* they are lying? In other words, have they fooled themselves as well? Part of me hopes thay are just delusional, because otherwise to call them evil is not a hyperbole :(
At first I was surprised at how quickly Adams jumped on Swayze's death.
Then I remembered that carrion flies will start landing on a corpse within minutes of death.
@MikeMa. Yeah, I agree. I was juxtaposing the two sides, basically asserting that doctors offer the meds because, well, because they work. If a patient refuses then whatcanyado -- it is presumed there is informed consent/nonconsent. But when someone refuses altmed, they get berated to no end and called a hoodwinked idiot and the subculture "leaders" and "rangers" issue a call to arms.
And yeah, I have also had to defend myself against this notion the alties hold that mainstream folks don't know that exercise and eating real food is a good thing. And btw, that includes milk and wheat (and murdered veggies!)for the majority of people. In fact, I will even go one step further and say that the reason I am not popping dozens of vitamins a day is because I get what I need from, uh -- what's it called -- oh yeah, FOOD.
This just in: "Even stage 4 pancreatic cancer can be reversed with diet changes, taking targeted supplements and detoxing."
http://twitter.com/nerissaoden/status/4013653697
So sayeth one Nerissa Oden, who oughta know, because she's married to "Dr." Joe Vitale. Read it & weep, naysayers!
Re RevRon's comment above: We need to give credit where it is due. Nerissa O. apparently gets a lot of *her* cutting-edge health information from noted health expert Kevin Trudeau. As she recently wrote on Twitter:
"You must visit www.NaturalCures.com Kevin Trudeau is a major health and wellness advocate."
http://twitter.com/nerissaoden/status/3863582527
Sadly, it's people such as Trudeau who are making the really big bucks from the eternally hopeful. He's even been to prison for fraud, but that hasn't discouraged him one little bit.
My brother had bowel cancer and his little boy had leukaemia. They used to sit together at the chemo unit having their treatments and it was arduous, sometimes painful and exhausting, but it was worth it. Fast forward 5 years and you'd never guess either had ever been sick. They're both cancer-free and living life to its fullest. Thank you to all those who work in the area of cures for cancers! PS: My brother refused to speak to anybody touting 'natural cures'. He knew enough about science to know they couldn't possibly work!
Suzanne Sommers has now jumped into the holistic bandwagon and said that Patrick Swayze would have lived longer if he refused chemotherapy and did the alt-med thing...
Jeez! How can people be - and why are most celebrities - so fucking clueless? I wonder, is there a high concentration of such idiots in the US, or they are equally prevalent in the rest of the world? (Perhaps 'yes' to the latter... I am thinking of the popularity of homeopathy in several European and Asian countries...)
The comments in that articles I linked to are interesting, though!
"Suzanne Sommers has now jumped into the holistic bandwagon and said that Patrick Swayze would have lived longer if he refused chemotherapy and did the alt-med thing...
Jeez! How can people be - and why are most celebrities - so fucking clueless?"
Clueless! Jenny McCarthy tells us that vaccines are poison, and Suzanne Sommers tells us that chemo is poison. Who would you rather pay attention to -- blondes with big boobs, or biologists with big brains?
@wfjag: heh, I'd rather pay serious attention to the boobies themselves... at least that would be more interesting and sense-making than listening to the ignorant and deceitful bilge that the bodily hosts of those boobies spew incessantly...
Poor biologists with big brains stand no chance!
Who would you rather pay attention to -- blondes with big boobs, or biologists with big brains?
I'd like both. Just sayin.
As a follow up to the Suzanne Somers comments above - here is the brief news item that I saw. Patrick Swayze would be turning in his grave if he wasn't already cremated. Epidemic indeed.
Actress Suzanne Somers claims chemotherapy killed actor Patrick Swayze.
In a new interview with Torontoâs National Post, Somers â a former cancer survivor â reportedly blames Swayzeâs course of treatment â and not his disease â for taking the âDirty Dancingâ starâs life.
âThey took this beautiful man and they basically put poison in him,â Somers told National Post columnist Shinan Govani. âWhy couldnât they have built him up nutritionally and gotten rid of the toxins in his body?â
In 2001, the former âThreeâs Companyâ actress revealed she was battling breast cancer. However, after having surgery to remove the lump followed by radiation treatment, she refused chemotherapy against the advice of her doctors in favor of alternative treatment.
âI hate to be this controversial,â Somers continued. âIâm a singer-dancer-comedienne. But we have an epidemic going on, and I have to say it.â
While I would admit that knocking someone's choice of treatment especially so close to their death is pretty low, some of you are some self-righteous, arrogant SOB's and have no room to even judge this guy. The majority of these posts read as though treatments outside of chemo and surgery (read "alternative") are completely devoid of science and clinical evidence. Many forms of therapy have worked for MANY people too. There is a difference in what can be openly broadcast as treatments outside of the medical model and unless you work in the field that attempts to publicize this information you don't know the full story of the asinine work of the FTC and FDA. As if any form of treatment that you may not have personal experience with or know people that have done it = total lack of science and quackery.
When a post says well my Mom had (insert cancer) and is alive today thanks to chemo and I will rush out and do the same, I say great, I am glad that your Mom's condition is in remission. Still doesn't mean that it is gone and you should really look into the reoccurrence of other forms. Like the guy saying first the testicles, then the colon, then what? Once you have poisoned the tissue and cut out what you can and the cancer keeps on coming----happens ALL the time....at what point do you say hmmm....maybe this is pretty barbaric and not getting to the root of the issue.
To the guy that wanted to compare mean survival time of the chemo vs no chemo, check out Ralph Moss' bookhttp://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Chemotherapy-Ralph-W-Moss/dp/18810252…
I'm not saying it is gospel but it should at least activate that grey matter between your ears.
Oh....and to this guy"I hope it's your kids who get polio, mumps, measles and whooping cough, not others affected by the loss of herd immunity."----you are a straight up scumbag and the only appropriate response for you is that one of your immune family members (you know cause vaccines are totally proven in double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies...long term ones too) suffers at the hand of your arrogance.
That's generally because peddling an unproven treatment as a proven one is considered "fraud". Might want to look that word up in your dictionary.
"Uh, Mike, ever hear of Lance Armstrong? He had testicular cancer. Not only that, but it was stage IV disease, with metastases to lung and brain. Guess what? Chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation cured him of his cancer, and he's been cancer-free for 13 years."
According to Mike Adams, what saved Lance Amrstrong were exercise and sunlight and certainly not the treatments he received. Really:
"Unfortunately, [Sheryl Crow's] hubby Lance Armstrong is more into the conventional drugs-and-chemo approach, and most people probably don't realize the two things that saved Armstrong's life were intense exercise and regular exposure to sunshine during his cycling training (creating vitamin D, a powerful anti-cancer nutrient)."
"That's generally because peddling an unproven treatment as a proven one is considered "fraud". Might want to look that word up in your dictionary."
That was a brilliant reply,hmmm...yes adding that foreign word to my vocabulary will surely make your stupid ass assumption be correct. Really?? You actually believe that because a treatment is "unproven" that it is a fraud? Then you do understand that all treatments start as unproven and are put into clinical trials, right?
No actually I know exactly what you mean. Experimental UNPROVEN new chemo drug that may give your dying loved one just the chance they need---awesome, thank you Doc!
Experimental "alternative" treatment proven (anecdotally or not) FRAUD!!!!
So much easier when you don't have to think about these things!
Matt S:
What are these therapies and what evidence do you have that they have actually worked?
Joseph C:
Matt S:
Comment 92, part 2:
Reading comprension FAIL.
(please excuse comment posting FAIL)
Raph Moss? Are you farking kidding?
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Reviews/moss.html
Learn how to read, Matt. It's all up there for you to digest.
My father was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer almost 3 months ago. It is also in one of his adrenal glands and in his lower lumbar spine.
He has not smoked in over 25 years. He is 6'2", 190 lbs., has kept up his physicals every year, and according to his GP, he is the model of health for a 53-year-old man. His blood pressure rivals mine (I'm an extremely health-conscious 28-year-old woman). By all accounts, he was in great shape. In fact, when his GP came to visit him in the hospital after the bone cancer laid him out (that's how we found out--excruciating pain from the cancer in his spine), the poor doc looked like he'd been hit with a brick, he was so shocked. Dad had no symptoms until the spinal lesions acted up.
My father is undergoing palliative chemotherapy. His life expectancy without it would be 6 months; with it, it's about a year. He, like Swayze, is hopeful he will beat it, but chances are he won't.
When I saw him in the hospital when he was first diagnosed, he was on morphine every 2 hours. This is a man who'd been hospitalized twice: once for a broken neck (he later broke his body cast playing football) and once for appendicitis. He nearly burned off 3 fingers on a 440 volt shock, and even then he did not go to the emergency room. The pain from the cancer was unbearable, and he called the ambulance himself (something he'd never done).
Since chemo started, he has only missed work on the days of treatment, and that is only because treatment takes 6 hours. He's still on pain medication, but he basically has his normal life. He generally has 2-3 rough days shortly after chemo, and he generally has 2-3 rough days just before it starts back. But chemo is making his life possible right now. Chemo is alleviating his pain.
I truly wish there were a cure for what he has, but we just aren't there yet. Mike Adams is a jerk for claiming otherwise, especially considering that he's doing so with NO evidence.
I'm a gentle person, a preschool teacher, but I would love to punch Mike Adams in the face. Perhaps that's because I have to sit by and watch the most important person in the world to me die while Mike Adams fleeces the vulnerable for his own gain. Jerk.
That's because they are. Anything well-supported by science and evidence is very quickly adopted by mainstream oncologists.
As did bloodletting. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Indeed, doctors are held to actual ethical and legal standards which do not allow them to defraud patients by lying and selling treatments that are not proven to work.
Actually, people here disregard personal experience with treatments almost entirely, because we understand that it's entirely unreliable. Relying on personal experience instead of careful trials to judge a treatment is, indeed, total lack of science and quackery.
Ur a bunch of fooktards. I rest my case. There's a much higher chance curing naturally. Duh. fookers.
[sarcasm]Wow, that is just brilliant! We are all devastated by your quick grasp of logic and overwhelming amount of evidence.[/sarcasm]
I don't know who nauseates me more, Mike Adams or Orac... I can't believe I read all of this. I want those minutes back so I can do something more productive, like sleep.
I was recently in a tuss-up with Adams about his âfacts.â All I have to say is, if you follow this guy beware, and if you disagree with him watch out. I received threats and obscene emails from his followers. Firstâ¦whether you are for or against natural medicine is irrelevant in my eyes, I happen to believe in some natural therapies.
What I do find most disturbing is how any comment that disagrees with articles on the NaturalNews.com site is almost immediately removed. Where is the free thinking in that? Where is the debate? How is one to make up their mind if one side of the story is being suppressed? And, worse yet, do we know the motives behind the suppression, are we being sold something more than just a news item from this site? If you donât believe me, try it. Post a polite but opposing view under the comment section and see how long it stays on the website.
http://www.themiraclemineralsupplement.com/
Anyone who doesn't read that webpage and try to understand how chlorine dioxide works, cannot legitimately argue that its a hoax! Unless you can go through the information and explain scientifically and logically how and why you think it doesn't work, then your a moron for posting anything opposing it.
I know people who have cured themselves naturally, I am a huge advocate of natural remedies and Mikes tips are very helpful and important to me. I personally am in great health, I stopped getting vaccinated in the 8th grade and I also stopped getting sick twice a year after 8th grade.
Chlorine Dioxide has been proven to CURE malaria, aids, tuberculosis, hepatitis, and many other diseases, theres a glitch though, IT ONLY COSTS $40 pharmaceutical companies and doctors can't drive around mercedes and live in beverly hills mansions on $40 per customer. DOCTORS DON"T GET RICH OFF HEALTHY PEOPLE. How come there was virtually no cancer prior to the 1900's? Why is it that in China and Mexico natural remedies are widespread and there is a fraction of the amount of cancer in those countries as opposed to Canada and the US? The author of this article obviously passionately hates Mr. Adams and his only goal is to personally attack and insult him, so I don't expect any type of positive feedback to this comment, I only wish the majority of people were capable of thinking for themselves and researching ways to improve their own health. It amazes me how ignorant people are about an issue so important as their health, you wait until something goes devastatingly wrong! GET INFORMED!
wankoooo , lol. you are a disgrace, dear author, to the human race. and that's just my opinion.
rapolas
[sarcasm]Wow, that is just brilliant! We are all devastated by your quick grasp of logic and overwhelming amount of evidence.[/sarcasm]
(this is another old comment where the comments should be closed)
I personally am grateful to Mike Adams for the information he spreads FOR FREE. My interest in natural and nutritional cures was sparkled by my then hopeless fight with obesity. Many of Mike Adams' articles are backed by studies. I do not use all of the information, but take selectively whatever makes sense to me personally. I am grateful to him and others who post on the web natural cures. Thanks to the free subscription to news from his site I have learned about many useful books and cures. What I've learned from him and others has helped cure different health problems of mine, of my friends and family. I believe that academic medicine is good for diagnosis. Once there is a diagnosis I search information about the true cause and how to cure it. Whenever there is a health problem I do Google search for 'health-problem-name natural cure' and use the information. It has worked well so far. This has helped me cure my sciatica, obesity, my mother's rotting thumb, colitis and gastritis, a friends obesity and sluggishness, someone's schizophrenia, someone's heart problems, etc. However, as a rule, I avoid as much as possible vitamin supplementation and herbs (which have to be processed by the liver), but instead am interested in biochemistry, nourishing the body and getting nutrients from food, as well as in cleansing and a healthy lifestyle.
I believe that we are part of nature and should respect her as well as our bodies if we wish to live healthy happy lives.
The Health Ranger rules!
Only if it were a contest of abject stupidity!
well obviously this is a pharmaceutical rep's discussion site!!To me Mike Adams is the bible of natural health!!!And I read his articles faithfully!!Pharmaceuticals killed my entire family with chemo killing my mother without a doubt.I've been taking supplements for 30 years and got rid of hepatitis entirely and do one armed pushups at 61 and that would not be possible if I was on pharmaceuticals!!!
Ah, yes, the totally unoriginal Pharma Shill Gambit.
Oh, and Curtis: supplements are made by the pharmaceutical companies!
I prefer cthonic, non-euclidean cyclopian dread unnatural health myself. I hope to be eaten first!
Iä! Iä! Cthulhu Fhtagn! Phânglui mglwânafh Cthulhu Râlyeh wgahânagl fhtagn!
great discussion everyone. I'd like to add to the cancer-curing stories. When my grandpa was diagnosed with skin cancer he immediately swore off conventional doctors. The doctors told him that they would have to surgically remove the cancerous cells and his life would be prolonged. He told our family that the doctors were trying to make money off him while they watched him die. I was 15 years old at the time and thought he was insane. I went around school telling my friends how insane my grandpa was and we all had a good laugh. (This was very cruel I know, I was young, forgive me) I was over at my grandpa's house a few weeks after he swore off the doctors and he showed the family a machine he was using to "zap" away the cancer cells. I still thought he was crazy. This was 8 years ago. My grandpa is now 93 and still very active. His once cancerous skin on his back looks like the skin of a healthy adult. (minus the wrinkles) I learned a few years ago that he was taking supplements containing high amount of vitamins and minerals during this time he was "zapping" away the cancer. I don't know much about medicine, but I do know that my grandpa cured his skin cancer with alternative therapies.
Greg the Necromancer:
There are a few things missing from your story:
Was a biopsy taken?
If so, what kind of skin cancer was it? There's a big difference between actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma, and malignant melanoma.
If not, your story is meaningless.
You also might want to look at this non-necrotic post and the comments: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/holiday_weekend_reader_mailba…
Another thought comes to mind -- I wonder if he was essentially using a cautery. That might possibly work, though it seems a rather painful alternative to a quick excision of the melanoma under local anesthesia. Of course, if the melanoma was never excised, then it was never sent to pathology, and nobody really knows if it was even malignant, as Mr McNeely has already so well pointed out.
I've had two suspicious moles removed. My eldest daughter has had one removed as well. (It was in a spot that doesn't get sun exposure, and it grew rapidly, causing alarm.) All were sent to pathology, all proved benign. My grandparents, on the other hand, have both had malignant moles removed. It appears the surgeons got it all in each case, though, so all is well. (It took a couple of tries on my grandma; the tumor was deeper than expected. But there were clean margins the second time.)
Another thought comes to mind -- I wonder if he was essentially using a cautery. That might possibly work, though it seems a rather painful alternative to a quick excision of the melanoma under local anesthesia. Of course, if the melanoma was never excised, then it was never sent to pathology, and nobody really knows if it was even malignant, as Mr McNeely has already so well pointed out.
I've had two suspicious moles removed. My eldest daughter has had one removed as well. (It was in a spot that doesn't get sun exposure, and it grew rapidly, causing alarm.) All were sent to pathology, all proved benign. My grandparents, on the other hand, have both had malignant moles removed. It appears the surgeons got it all in each case, though, so all is well. (It took a couple of tries on my grandma; the tumor was deeper than expected. But there were clean margins the second time.)
Greg, because you are posting on a article that is over a year old, which makes you a necromancer, here are some basic rules before commenting on a blog or forum:
1) If you find an article through Google, before commenting go to the first page and see what is under discussion.
2) Get to know the place, lurk for a while.
3) Become familiar with the writing style, especially in how issues are discussed. Remember that argument by assertion will not go far on this blog, and neither with anecdotes (the plural of anecdote is not data).
4) Actually read the article and comments before commenting.
5) Try to proof read your comments (okay, we don't all do that).
6) If you think you want to bring a subject up to the participants' attention, please use the search box on the upper left side of this page to see if it has been discussed before (you might want to search for the terms "hulda clark zapper").
7) If you get an error when posting a comment, before posting again... open another window to see if it was actually posted.
As for Mike Adams and his comments, i feel he should learn to be more sympathetic to tragedy when it happens. no one chooses cancer or deserves it. even very healthy people can get it too.
i must say however, most of the abovce comments seem completely silly(other than having a go at mike).
For people to say a food is no longer alive once it is picked and imply that it is not as healthy as dead food is stupid in the extreme. thats like saying seeds dont contain life? live food is extremely and most definitely the healthiest form of food in this world of ours.
i doubt if any of the above replies are from people who consciously try their best to eat healthy foods. fresh fruit and vegetables.... not toxic diary products and decaying dead flesh, kept looking good way past spoiled dates by carbon monoxide gas. not sugar laiden foodstuff bastardized by man. no smoking, no drinking alcohol etc etc... no burgers, deep fried junk etc etc...
i just wonder how many fewer people would actually develop cancer if we all actually lived a healthy diet...
my apologies to the Swayze family and all who have been affected by cancer.
Vaughn, what's your evidence that foodstuff which is still constituted to perpetuate its own life processes is optimal for the life processes of other organisms which consume it? There seems to be little logical basis for such a speculation, much less any basis for calling any question of that speculation "stupid"; it would be like saying "the best paper to recycle is unquestionably the paper that has important information that someone still needs written on it."
From your reference to seeds containing "life", it sounds like you subscribe to the idea of vitalism: that "life" is something like a special energy force, which is sometimes contained by organisms but is lost when the organism dies even if the organism's physical form remains unaltered in its makeup. This is a popular idea among pre-scientific peoples but the problem is, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the idea.
Food is generally healthier to eat when it's fresh, and a living organism generally keeps itself fresh, but the freshness is the key quality, not the living.
I remember a chapter of the cooking manga "Oishinbo" where two fish were compared for freshness, one alive, one dead. The dead fish was actually fresher and better quality than the live one, due to the fact the dead one was drained of blood and kept on ice, while the live fish had spent several days in a small tank without being fed.
Short version: Freshness is not simply about how "live" something is.
Vaughn,
Do you have any evidence to back up these comments?
"live food is extremely and most definitely the healthiest form of food in this world of ours." Source?
"toxic diary products" Are all dairy products toxic? If so, please cite a source. Or are you speaking of particular dairy products that are toxic? If so, please name them and cite a source.
"decaying dead flesh" Same basic questions apply as for dairy. Is a dry aged steak "decaying dead flesh" and is this bad for you? How do you know?
Vaughn:
So you don't actually chew your food? And your digestive system does not kill and break down the plant cells?
Biology fail.
Hello all. I googled 'Mike Adams', while doing some research in order to become a writer for the site. I got lured in by the prospect of a little money and some writing practice. Being from a scientific background, the sound of bells ringing grew louder the more I read about all these magical wonderful mystery toxins, and 'dangerous foods'.
So no one has ever been cured of cancer with chemotherapy? Funny that. I was repeating this story to my friend on facebook who informed me that he had lymphoma a few years back, and guess what? Cured, by chemotherapy. Safe to say I wont be perusing my application. Suddenly feel the need to cleanse, flush out those toxic notions. Pass me a Richard Dawkins book, quickly!
Why aren't doctors telling patients of the importance of vitamin D3?
re doctors and vitamin D3: Who says they're not? My internist advised me to take it.
HTML fail!!! That should be:
Yeah, live flesh is so much better. So, you up for oysters tonight?
Oh, and you're right -- you should NEVER eat a toxic diary product. There is such a thing as having *too much* fiber in your diet, after all.
Yeah, live flesh is so much better.
I disagree... I find that it wriggles around so much that I burn more calories holding it down on the plate than I get from eating it in the first place. Thanks, I'll stick with medium-rare.
-- Steve
PS: I'd argue that strong cheese is more like "living food" than any silly vegetable, with the bacterial cultures and all.
Are all dairy products toxic? If so, please cite a source.
Here's your "source," buster: MUCUS.
It's a fairly common theme in the leftovers of imported Lebensreform; Wikipedia suggests that there was some dispute between Herbert Shelton and Arnold Ehret over natural versus unnatural mucus or something. (I'm not going after it.) Shelton apparently never actually gave up dairy, but combined with the rotting-meat routine, I think this is the general post-Victorian cloud that Vaughn is coming from, rather like Emily.