Oh, yes, my brothers and sisters, we have done it!
My pharma paymasters are very, very pleased indeed with me and all of their other blogging and Twittering minions. Very, very pleased indeed. In fact, they are cackling with glee over the discomfiture of one of their greatest enemies, Mike Adams, a.k.a. The Health Ranger! This brave rebel's plan to attack the conspiracy by winning a Shorty Award in Health has been thwarted, thanks to the efforts of you and me, oh my brothers and sisters, and The Health Ranger has gone completely mental about it:
I was set to take the top prize, and Dr. Mercola was in a solid second place when some vaccine pushers got word that a couple of "natural medicine whackos" (as they described us) were about to win the award, and they organized an opposition campaign to elect their own candidate -- a virtually unknown doctor from Australia who held a strong opinion against homeopathy and natural medicine while pushing vaccines and pharmaceuticals. They began to call for others to vote for this "pro-vaccine" candidate, even though most people had no idea who she was and had never even read her work.
But the opposition didn't stop there: They unleashed a campaign of slanderous and false accusations against NaturalNews readers, accusing the readers of somehow engaging in fraudulent voting. Without a shred of supporting evidence (because none exists), they accused us of rigging the contest. It's ridiculous, of course. I personally have well over a million readers around the world. We are legitimate producers of natural health content who are both known all over the world, and we have very large numbers of followers and readers spanning well over a hundred countries. The fact that our vote numbers climbed rapidly was merely a reflection of the level of support for NaturalNews and the Health Ranger.
It wasn't really surprising to see the vaccine quacks engaging in their false accusations, of course: Lying and cheating is par for the course for the vaccine and pharmaceutical industries. Their supporters apparently reflect that same lack of ethical behavior. They will apparently do anything to win, even if it means engaging in widespread false accusations and trying to get natural health people removed from the contest altogether.
That's right, my brothers and sisters, our masters have succeeded, and it is all due to your hard work at the conspiracy to defame the hapless Health Ranger.
I'm particularly impressed at how Brother Farley pointed out that Mr. Adams had as many as 20% of his votes coming from dubious sources, in particular accounts created solely to vote for him. Brother Farley's leadership in this area has been most exemplary, and he will be rewarded appropriately by our pharma masters with an enormous payday and vaccines with extra thimerosal. Oh, and the gratitude of his pharma masters, which is incalculable in the benefits it can bring to a blogger.
In the meantime, enjoy the spectacle of Adams railing against the defeat that he has been dealt:
In investigating this issue, I also learned that the Shorty Awards actually encourages defamatory attacks, slanderous accusations and profanity as part of their voting process. They do this by ignoring their responsibility to police and remove such unprofessional behavior on the part of candidates and voters. The vaccine-pushing candidate now "winning" the Shorty Awards in the health category has text on her website that says, "If water has memory, then homeopathy is full of shit."
Of course, homeopathy is full of shit, but then Mike Adams has never let a little thing like science trouble his tiny mind. He also seems confused at what defamation and slander are. You can't slander or defame a treatment like homeopathy. Rachael was merely expressing her opinion, which I echo.
Even better, near the end, Adams says it wasn't that big a deal anyway:
In the end, I suppose winning a Shorty Award wasn't really such a big deal. We don't need recognition from some tiny website to legitimize our existence on the 'net. But seeing how the Shorty Awards engages in outright vote fraud while rigging the awards just goes to prove, once again, how supporters of pharmaceutical medicine lie and cheat their way into getting what they want -- ethics be damned!
This contest also goes to show you that vaccine pushers will do almost anything to shut down the opposition and try to silence anyone who has the intelligence to question the so-called "science" behind vaccines. Since they can't win in an honest contest, they are forced to resort to cheating and lying in an attempt to rig the outcome. The Shorty Awards allowed them to do precisely that. You could accurately say, in essence, that the Shorty Awards has conspired with a group of liars and cheats to rig the outcome of their awards competition. That is a factual statement that will stand up in a court of law.
Mike has a funny way of showing how little this vote mattered to him. He published a long rant against the organizers of the Shorty Awards, and now he's Tweeting threats to sue them. Maybe it's just me, but I'm beginning to suspect that the Shorty Award in Health mattered rather more to The Health Ranger than he is letting on, wouldn't you agree?
In any case, Mike thinks there was outright vote fraud? Seriously, get out the valium. and maybe some Haldol. Our pharma masters will be happy to supply it to Mike, and he clearly needs it. As for libel or slander, Mr. Adams should be careful, because his claim that the Shorty Awards "conspired with a group of liars and cheats to rig the outcome of their awards competition" is clearly defamatory and might even be libelous. True, it's highly unlikely that anyone would sue Adams. For one thing, they'd have to track him down in his Central American abode in order to serve him papers; it'd be far more trouble and expense than he's worth. Of course, if Mike actually sues the Shorty Awards himself, I would be salivating--nay, licking my lips and cackling with glee, just like my big pharma masters and just like Emperor Palpatine!--over the prospect of some high-powered attorneys engaging in a bit of discovery when it comes to Adams' website, business dealings, and promotion of quackery "natural health." That could make for some very interesting discoveries, and if it were ever to go to trial I'd love to see Mike Adams on the stand, because if there was anyone involved in vote rigging it was very likely to be Mr. Adams himself, as this record might suggest but cannot prove. At the very least, his overenthusiastic followers can't read the rules for the contest.
Mr. Adams also seems to have a serious double standard. (So what else is new?) He castigates those who reported his voting chicanery to the Shorty Awards as "liars and cheats" in the thrall of big pharma and castigates them for rallying against him, as though it were some sort of huge conspiracy, and then what does he do? He urges his readers to do exactly the same sorts of things that you and I, my brothers and sisters, were urging people to do, namely vote for the acceptable candidate with the best shot at winning (although Rachael is far more than "acceptable"; she's fantastic). Adams does this by urging his readers to vote for the über-quack supporter, Joe Mercola, giving him an "endorsement" that completely validates my opinion of Mercola, saying "Dr. Mercola and I agree nearly 100% on issues like vaccines and health freedom."
Adams might just as well have said, "Mercola is a quack." Come to think of it, he just did.
Be that as it may, Adams has thrown his support behind the candidate he likes who might still have a chance--just as we did with Rachael. Then he urges his readers to try to game the search engines:
Link to this article from your website using the words "Shorty Awards voting fraud." This will help this article appear near the top of the search engine rankings any time someone searches for "Shorty Awards."
Good idea, Mike! That's exactly why I did just that, my brothers and sisters, servants of the Illuminati-Mason-Pharma-Vaccine (IMPV) Overlords, and--dare I say?--suggest that you do just that as well, so that explanations of Adams' attempt to game the system bubble to the top of the search engines if at all possible. Thanks, Mike, for the great idea! Who knows if it will work or not, but it'll be fun finding out!
Although we have won this small battle, our job, alas, is not yet done, my brothers and sisters. There is still an enemy of the conspiracy running in the Shorty Awards in Health. Dr. Mercola may be far behind Rachael, but don't count him out. It'll be fun finding out if Mike manages to get Dr. Mercola disqualified for the same reason he was disqualified. It says right in the rules that only preexisting Twitter accounts can be used to vote for Shorty Awards, and Adams is in essence encouraging his followers to do the same sorts of things that got him booted. It is thus in our interest to encourage him to continue, the better to watch his head explode when Dr. Mercola inevitably ends up being disqualified too. After all, if there's one thing the IMPV is about, it's overkill.
And black helicopters. We love black helicopters. Just ask David Ayoub.
- Log in to post comments
Mike Adams is a real piece of work. Check out this Scam he tried pulling off.
http://mike-adams-scam-artist.blogspot.com/p/mike-adams-scam.html
Did he not read the rules?
I know it's perverse, but my favorite part of this story is that I can now think of myself as a 'vaccine pusher'. I hadn't heard that before.
Apparently Mike hasn't discovered your secret weapon of mass distraction -- your array of mind-control satellites brainwashing the masses.
Or maybe he just hasn't said anything about it because he's actually a double-agent working for your nefarious scheme.
the50besthealthblogs.blogspot.com
So, when can we expect our LARGE checks from Big-Pharma. Being part of the conspiracy isn't as much fun if we don't get paid.
@AdamY,
He clearly didn't read the rules and neither have Mercola's supporters who are spamming me every 5 mins with votes in #quackery from accounts 5 minutes old. They also continue to vote for Adams.
The funniest part is several have voted for me in health, but added abusive/insulting reasons, e.g., "...because she represents Big Phrama and shows how corrupt it is", and "..because she is the puppet who you want to win instead of Mike Adams." Regardless, this still counts as a vote in #health for me.
Chortle.
You'll also be pleased to know that the Big Pharma conspiracy theories are well and truly entrenched, as indicated by my very first email from someone asking me who pays me to write my website, since it is so filled with hate, I couldn't possibly be doing it for free. I thanked them politely for suggesting that my site was of a quality they might expect of a professional/paid-for site.
Ooooh. I like that line. I'm going to steal it the next time someone pulls the pharma shill gambit on me.
It's like he played Deus Ex as a kid and thought Gray Death was real.
This one just came in.
"I nominate DrRachie for a Shorty Award in #health because... She;s part of a scam"
This is a vote for me.
Facepalm.
From little things, big things grow. When Rachie first tweeted that Mercola and Adams were leading the awards, well, I thought my response would be minimal and mainly symbolic.
Of course, I didn't count on the skeptical and scientific community taking it on with such gusto.
Thanks to everyone who's voted, and thanks to Dr Rachie for being, well... Dr Rachie.
Keep it up, though. The quacks still have a [slim] chance.
This one just came in.
"I nominate DrRachie for a Shorty Award in #health because... She;s part of a scam"
This is a vote for me.
Facepalm.
I hope my vote, with it's comment about "an anti-vax nutbag", didn't have anything to do with his reaction.
Well, OK, I hope it did, but realise he probably didn't have time to read all of the votes against him.
Looks like Mr Adams is a sorry loser. Or doesn't understand the basic principles of an election. How did we dare to rally and go vote for his opponent?
(well, how did you dare, I don't have a tweeter account)
All rational health conscious people, wherever they may live, are entitled to the benfits of vaccinations, and, therefore, as a rational health conscious person, I take pride in the words 'Ich bin ein vaccine Schieber!'
(Apologies to JFK and the people of Berlin.)
I think he is demonstrating a profound inability to think critically. (He doesn't even seem to realize he's going to ruin Mercola's chances if his minions go and cast illegitimate votes for his buddy.) That's not too surprising, actually...
All rational health conscious people, wherever they may live, are entitled to the benfits of vaccinations, and, therefore, as a rational health conscious person, I take pride in the words 'Ich bin ein vaccine Schieber!'
(Apologies to JFK and the people of Berlin.)
I don't think he should have been DQd, they should just throw out the illegal votes. Let him lose (or win) an unrigged contest.
I for one am quite proud to be called a "vaccine pusher." Thanks for the kind words.
I have received some reports that some of the accounts that voted for Adams are being deleted from Twitter right now. I haven't verified that, many of them are still there.
I would guess that its because they are spamming multiple tweets like there is no tomorrow.
As I mentioned on twitter - his justification for the failure is a homoeopathic one: Not a single particle of the actual truth to be found.
I only very recently started using twitter (a few days or so), so hopefully my vote counts.
It is truly astonishing that some of you talk about brain-washing and then point out Dr. Mercola and the Health Ranger as examples. It is obvious to me where the brain-washing lies. All Dr. Mercola does is promote a healthy, natural lifestyle and point out the fraud and quackery of the large pharmaceutical companies. You talk about science based medicine. Well science shows that thousands of people died from Vioxx. Science shows that many thousands die each year from medical mistakes and malpractice. Science shows that nutrition supports the immune system and is your best defense against disease. But if you must promote quackery in the guise of "scientific" medicine, by all-means proceed. "Trust your heart to Lipitor" if you must. But I trust myself taking an active hand in my own health. Put your own health at risk, but don't spread your ignorance to others who wish to preserve theirs.
Liar liar pants on fire. He also promotes scams such as homeopathy. Even the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine says that homeopathy defies the laws of known science.
Trevo de Koikkoek:
Oh, really?
From the article in the link:
...
It's not done with satellites. It's a ground installation which uses an array of about 180 powerful antennas to manipulate the ionosphere. This causes the ley-lines to react which of course affects brain energies.
Actual photo.
And congratulations to DrRachie.
Here's the way I see #21.
Alt-med woo that I more or less can think up off the top of my head that pretty much definitively don't work or cause more harm than they fix:
Hulda Clark's cancer "cures"
Nicholas Gonzalez's pancreatic cancer "cures"
Chiropractic that causes stroke/death
Vaccine denialists that say they'd rather have MMR for their children than the autism they claim the vaccines cause.
Examples of oversold pharmaceuticals that *might* be more harmful than they're worth:
Vioxx
Some antidepressants, maybe
I'd like to hear about more than just Vioxx considering what the other side has.
versus
Some "health content" that is. Just saying...
Trevor, I apologize for not spelling your name correctly.
I wonder about that as well. Yes, a large amount of the votes going for him were invalid, based on the rules, and should have been thrown out. But why remove him altogether? I haven't seen anything on it from the Shorty folks.
I wonder about that as well. Yes, a large amount of the votes going for him were invalid, based on the rules, and should have been thrown out. But why remove him altogether? I haven't seen anything on it from the Shorty folks.
In other words there are suckers everywhere.
With regard to Mercola, one of the few occasions that I read his nonsense he was on a tirade about the evils of Teflon. At the end of the rant of course, he mentioned he had a "special offer" on uncoated stainless steel cookware. The man is nothing but a shameless huckster.
Brilliant. I loved watching this go down over twitter.
Query: What happens if a bunch of his deluded followers jump on twitter and start casting their brand-new-twitter-account votes for DrRachie in a vindictive attempt to get her disqualified too?
I do think it unfortunate he was outright disqualified as it wasn't necessarily his fault. Or maybe the shorties took into account his asking his followers to sign up for accounts to vote for him, if he did such a thing. Then it would make sense.
At any rate, I hope DrRachie gets a free trip to New York! :D
Is anyone else feeling as sad as me about this guy, Adams? He sounds deranged. Actualy, the whole business is mind bogglingly juvenile.
So why do I find it so fascinating?
Yeah, cause there's still so much smallpox and polio in the US you'd think reasonable people could see that vaccines are all fraud, right?
Mercola also sells a tanning bed for 3 grand to make sure you can get adequate vitamin D; Thelma took it on in a post called Paging Doctor Quackaloon at http://evendumbasseshavefeelings.blogspot.com/2009/11/pagin-doctor-quac… and I took on the Vitamin D Council at Countering (it's directly linked through my name)--the folks there came up with a vitamin d causal theory on autism, of course, and are hawking their kits to test your kids vitamin d levels, with a link of course to Mercola's special tanning bed.
With regard to Mercola, one of the few occasions that I read his nonsense he was on a tirade about the evils of Teflon. At the end of the rant of course, he mentioned he had a "special offer" on uncoated stainless steel cookware. The man is nothing but a shameless huckster.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | January 23, 2010 1:34 PM
Seriously? Has he ever noticed what makes the steel stainless -- or are these "chelated" nickel-chrome steel?
Orac writes: "[...]if it were ever to go to trial I'd love to see Mike Adams on the stand, because if there was anyone involved in vote rigging it was very likely to be Mr. Adams himself, as this record shows."
In the interests of accuracy, my audit of nominations for @healthranger made no guesses of who was behind the invalid nominations, nor whether they were necessarily fraudulent. The nominators may have been established Twitter users at the time of nomination but failed to include a reason for nomination, etc. I simply gauged the listed nominations against the rules as published:
* A tweet that does not give a reason for the nomination will not be counted
* Voters must be active Twitter users prior to the start of the competition. Votes originating from new Twitter accounts or accounts used mainly for Shorty Awards voting will automatically be disqualified and will not count toward the rankings
* Votes must appear publicly. Votes from private Twitter accounts will not be counted
The estimation of up to 20% of the noms for @healthranger being invalid may be very conservative. Of the 152 noms for @healthranger posted since 20 Jan 2010 16:19:31 UTC-05:00 to the point where Shorty Awards disqualified @healthranger at approximately 21 Jan 2010 13:20 UTC-05:00, 112 were invalid- that's 73.68% invalidity.
Instead of disqualifying @healthranger entirely, which makes an unverifiable assumption that @healthranger in fact was behind the invalid noms, I would have preferred that Shorty Awards had done a complete audit and disqualified only the invalid noms. Since @healthranger had about 892 noms at the time of disqualification, such an audit would have been arduous and time consuming. Since there have been over 150,000 total nominations in the competition, I can see why Shorty Awards took the easier route, but this does give @healthranger SOME basis for a claim of unfairness.
Also, Orac notes that @healthranger encouraged his supporters to nominate him. This is specifically permitted in the rules.
Mind you, in no way am I defending this whackjob. Mike Adams' nonsense is indefensible. His dream that winning a Shorty would propel his rubbish into recognition as mainstream healthcare is as absurd as the claims themselves. This cat is full-tilt-boogie delusional. Given that a number of Shorty nominators, myself included, were not so much as aware that Adams even existed before encountering his participation in the Shortys, the exposure afforded by his participation and especially by his raging dummy-spit are not exactly going to help his cause much. Streisand effect, much?
It's also noteworthy that shortyawards.com has been unreachable at least a couple of times in the last several hours (not responding to pings). This may indicate a DDoS attack is being carried out against the site. Make of that what you will.
With an incredible con-game based on the internet and a fiery stupid comes the Health Ranger! Heigh-Ho [colloidal] Silver! Away!
(my apologies to fans of the late Clayton Moore.)
As I suggested on Twitter, I have another explanation for the Unreality Voting Fail leading to Adams' Hissy Fit. I suggest many of the Pro-Unreality Community were defeated because to cast a vote they had to articulate some kind of vaguely coherent thought in a rather small number of characters.
After all, as anyone who reads Alt.Reality blogs (or comments by their inhabitants) knows, a typical written "thought" needs hundreds of words, MANY TYPED IN STRINGS OF ANGRY CAPITALS. The words have to include the obligatory "BIG PHARMA" and "TOXINS", and maybe the optional (though still popular) mention of the Nazis.
I'm a little disturbed by our Astra-Zenecan Overlords lack of integrity. I was told that if any of my "work" was quoted by the plucky band of do-gooder rebels led by Adams and Mercola, that I would get either an Aston-Martin V-8 Vantage Cabriolet, or Porsche Panamera Turbo.
Dr. Rachie? Did you get your new car yet? I certainly haven't.
Oh well, I guess I can just drive around in the old jalopy they gave me for my tireless work pushing "science" on an unsuspecting public. Like I'd do that for free. (Cackles, closes laptop and sips from umbrella festooned, fruity cocktail while scantily clad cabana boy adjusts lounger for a better view of sun setting behind Mont Orohena).
skepticat:
He has much of the aspect of a deranged fundamentalist preacher.
The 10:23 folks might want to have a few tests done on the pills they plan to "overdose" on before taking them, just to be sure. There's a fair few documented cases of quacks sneaking *real* drugs into their preparations, and I'm told an acetaminophen overdose is not a pretty way to go.
Fair enough; as a result I actually made a minor change to soften the language somewhat in that part of the post.
I actually also agree with you that Adams shouldn't have been disqualified (unless the Shorty people know something I don't that would indicate why he should). Just chuck the illegal votes, which would have reduced Adams' total considerably. Perhaps I should have put a mention of that at the end of the post--but as an addendum. After all, saying such a thing in the post itself would have ruined the conspiracy theory satirical vibe I was shooting for.
I'm pretty sure Adams knows the rules as well as Orac does. But he's upset to have lost the popularity contest, and is responding with a hissy fit. Like a politician who cannot accept the will of the majority, he is alleging vote fraud. And threatening to sue the organizers? How pathetic does he have to get? Is his ego so fragile that something like this causes him serious psychological damage? Poor baby. Life must be very hard for him.
All your tweet belong to us. MWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Gee, the vaccine overlords must have lost my address 'cause the autism-mommy-vaccine-pusher paycheck hasn't gotten here yet. Or ever.
I don't personally push vaccines (I'm not an RN or MD) but I provide logistical support to those who do. Can I get on this big pharma gravy train? Baby wants a new pair of shoes!
It must be particularly galling for an alternative medicine practitioner to lose a popularity contest.
Where can they go now?
I like how it's "homeopathy and natural medicines" now. I guess they've learned their lesson about claiming that homeopathy *is* medicine.
Heh, brilliant. Either water has no memory, and the hypothesis is (figuratively) full of shit; or else water has memory and therefore the medicine is (literally) full of shit. roxorz
Done.
Referring to Adams' comment about how "We don't need recognition from some tiny website to legitimize our existence on the 'net.", Orac said:
"Mike has a funny way of showing how little this vote mattered to him. He published a long rant against the organizers of the Shorty Awards, and now he's Tweeting threats to sue them. Maybe it's just me, but I'm beginning to suspect that the Shorty Award in Health mattered rather more to The Health Ranger than he is letting on, wouldn't you agree?"
Oh yeah - since this is what Mike Adams said previously when he was urging his followers to vote for him:
"These are awards given to publishers of the internet's best short-form content, and these awards are recognized throughout the mainstream media.
This is your opportunity to help NaturalNews and the Health Ranger get some mainstream exposure for all the work we do"
So now that he's been disqualified from the voting, it suddenly doesn't matter to Mike. Classic, hilarious sour grapes.
Mike, you don't need an Internet award to be "recognized". Just keep those quackery-promoting, conspiracy-laden rants coming. We love 'em.
Stay crazy, baby.
Looks like Mercola is ramping up efforts to get increase his numbers and his lackeys are trying to mislabel Dr. Rachie to shift the negative tag of their remaining hero:
RT @mercola: Need your vote to beat wacky :doc: from Australia being pushed by Pharma. http://shortyawards.com/mercola.
I nominate @DrRachie for a Shorty Award in #quackery because... she knows little about true health and uses scare tacti http://bit.ly/shorty
Health Ranger knows who is behind this. These phony "science" blogs socialists and natural medicine haters on this site can just get ready. I can't wait until Health Ranger gets togther with others and starts an all out war on "Science" Blogs. Can you hear those war drums beating?
Mercola has picked up about 150 noms in the last 24h, 512 at this moment (24 Jan 0230 UTC).
There's 31 pages of noms @ 20 per page. How about a few skeps divvy them up into blocks 5 pages and audit them against the rules? I'll start on (partial page) 31 and go to page 25, will post the invalid noms here with notations of which rule is violated. When collated, they can go to info@shortyawards.com.
Seriously, get out the valium. and maybe some Haldol. Our pharma masters will be happy to supply it
Haldol? Valium? Surely you're joking! Both off patent generics, hardly worth shilling any more. Our pharma masters would like a word with you concerning profit maximization...
"Can you hear those war drums beating?"
I can hear something, but I think it's just verbal flatulence.
Or maybe the real thing, given the altie predilection for weird diets.
The odds don't seem good for a major loony uprising over this "conspiracy". There's a thread up on Curezone about Adamsgate (with a title indicating the author's belief that Adams was the victim of "psy ops". No one bothered to respond.
There are so many conspiracies out there that it's hard to concentrate on this one...maybe the chemtrails are acting up again or there are new revelations about Obama being the spawn of Satanic aliens.
I loved the article it must have taken you a while. I love the way most bloggers spend their time destroying rather than building making asinine comments and being generally disingenuous. For this reason I went straight to the shorty awards and voted for Mercola. You seem to be crowing over a mere 500 votes no one has won yet. You know what they say he who laughs etc etc. I have just tweeted my 4000 followers in natural health to go to the page and cast their votes for whoever they think deserves it. Keep up the good work you should help him win.
WTF is a health ranger. Does it have a white horse? Is it like an info warrior?
Wow, Ranger Mike is frothing at the mouth more than I've ever seen! He's just excreted a fresh, steaming article called "What skeptics really believe" (http://bit.ly/4WlbPI) that is - even for him - pretty far out there.
Methinks he is taking his loss very, very, very badly...
Is it just me, or does it seem that HealthRanger and his followers need to go on antipsychotics? Do they seriously believe that he was disqualified, not because he broke the rules, but because the Shorty awards are in on a massive big-pharma conspiracy?
That's just too much. I mean, a conspiracy that big would have to be logistically impossible to maintain, yet these people believe it exists.
@Null, I think they really do. I am being flooded with votes for quackery, most with reasons such as this;
"because she is in bed with the drug companies like all stupid docs"
"because she doesn't base her info on REAL answers, just drug relia" (this one tailed off - you'll have to fill in the gaps)
"she is working for pharmaceutical companies and Not for Human LIFE"
I'm about to hit the lead for quackery, so if anyone cares to vote for someone else please head over to http://shortyawards.com/category/quackery
@DrRachie, I just voted for Mercola in #quackery. And I quote: "Because, unlike Dr Rachie, he actually belongs in this category."
Wow ORAC - you're scary! You orchestrated Mike's demise in this contest almost singlehandedly and then talked up Dr. Rachael to everyone you could. ONLY because she was next in line after Mercola, of course - not because you even had a clue of who she before this. You've even got her HERE trying to get people to vote someone else for Quackery, so she won't win both categories. That would really be a hoot! Who should we be afraid of here - this blog is more 'cultlike' than Mike Adams' will ever be. We should be afraid of you!
@adamsRulz,
I think you'll find that most of the leading skeptical podcasters and bloggers know each other reasonably well.
Now why don't you go and give Healthranger a kiss and a cuddle - he needs you right now.
Oh, look, Boyd Haley has a Twitter account: twitter.com/OSR1
I have completed auditing @mercola #health noms, 151 of the 530 cast at the time of my audit are invalid,
Precisely, Sean the Blogonaut - a cult following - without a doubt. You've worked together nicely to destroy someone who is trying to do something good in this world. Shame - shame! Sad that you thrive on knocking good people down, instead of looking at your own selves in the mirror.
@AdamsRulz: hate to burst your bubble, but it was a few Australian skeptics with a measly few dozen Twitter followers and VERY POOR ATTITUDES who caught you sociopathic sods padding the vote. And we are good mates with PZ, so cop that, eh? :D
@AdamsRulz: oh, and... NOBODY stomps on our beloved Dr Rachie's toes with impunity, you dig?
War drums. *guffaw* You doing stand-up anywhere soon?
@AdamsRulz: The only good Mike the Health Danger is doing is fattening his wallet at the expense of public health. You oppose vaccination, you KILL CHILDREN (e.g. Dana McCaffery). That's supposed to be a GOOD thing? Gimme a break.
Go beat your war drum with something nice and soft... like your intellect.
He's thrown his toys out of the pram again.
http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html
Don't forget, you can drop by Hell's Newsstand and download our Homeopathy is Full of Shit poster. Now available in G-rated and Polish versions for your woo-dissing needs! And pick up a sixpack of Joemer Cola⢠Zero Homeopathic Soda.
http://hellsnewsstand.blogspot.com/2009/04/we-have-posters-too.html
"He's thrown his toys out of the pram again."
If monist materialism sets Adams off in this fashion, I can scarcely imagine how he'd react to Nagarjuna.
AdamsRulz is a fascinating example of the cognitive processing that occurs in individuals with below-average intelligence. In his first post, the assumption that Orac didn't know Rachael was taken as evidence that Respectful Insolence is cult-like. In his second post, the fact that he knew her was likewise taken evidence that Respectful Insolence is cult-like.
Whilst this may be plain dishonesty, it is more likely to be a cognitive defect. In a fully functional mind, evidence processing involves the recognition of implications and non-implications (and counter-implications, and so on...). For example, even if Respectful Insolence was a cult, the relationship between this contingency, and the contingency of Orac knowing Rachael would be one of non-implication. In certain minds, however, evidence processing seems to be haze of universal biconditional implications, hence what we see with AdamsRulz. He starts with the conclusion that Respectful Insolence is a cult (presumably as a result of being told so), and then assumes that all data (regardless of its nature) is evidence for this fact.
Remember, I said that our pharma masters will supply it, the implicating being that they would supply it for free. So naturally they would offer only the cheapest generics. Profit maximization is intact.
I'm sure Orac has met Dr. Rachie. Hell I'm a nobody and I've met her.
Mercola has done his nut on his FB page. Even some of his fans are a bit annoyed.
Actually, I've never met Dr. Rachie in person. She does live in Australia, you know, and I haven't attended any conferences where I might have met her until just last year.
I don't have a Twitter account so never voted in this whole mess. However, I knew who Dr Rachie was also. I haven't met her, but over a year ago Phil Plait linked to her site and I enjoyed reading her articles. She is well known in Australia, from what I can see, by skeptics and non-skeptics alike (although for some reason, Meryl doesn't seem to like Rachael that much. Can't imagine why...LOL)
If Dr. Rachie were in the U.S., JB Handley would be attacking her as much as he attacks me.
All the more reason to like Dr. Rachie. :-)
((True story)Yesterday at *sunset*,I got stuck in traffic in center city Phila.,in front of the.......Masonic Temple!It was a SIGN!!!! There was an *actual* sign in front of this ornate *Victorian* building about "General Pulaski"(who came from the same country as Orac's "friend's"-family)! More signs!!It was so clear to me!!Victory was imminent!!!!))......On a more serious note: Adams' "sour grapes" reaction fits in nicely with his other "sterling" character traits.Similarly,I recently heard (courtesy of Gary Null's noontime radio fiasco)Nicholas Gonzalez' rant about how the trials of his "cancer cure"(sic) were "fixed" by the Establishment- should be easy to find in the radio show archives at Null's miserable website( mid-January).
Just went on last entry in naturalnews (see #65). His last prose was, well, interesting. I suppose we can say he rounded the usual suspects of alt-med.
A few excerpts, just for fun (and because I don't have the courage to post this on his site - he is clearly upset about his late little fiasco, I don't want to provide him a target).
"Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines."
Dude, vaccines work because the human body do have this ability.
"Skeptics believe [...] the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring"
I remember seeing a spring in the countryside, coming out from a hill with a cow pasture on top. This water was very like the water in my toilet, and I would prefer avoid to drink any of both, if it is the same for you.
"Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert"
A bit of alkaloids to sprinkle on top of your rhubarb-and-digital salad, sir? Before your sauté of wild mushrooms?
And the last for any mother in the room
"Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis."
Both my birth and my sister's were medical crisis, dude (me too early, her too delayed). I am glad my mom didn't go for "natural" birth.
Or what about:
"Summing up the position of the "skeptics" is quite simple: Nature is bad, chemicals are good!"
"they don't even think they're alive to begin with!"
"Skeptics are bent on self destruction."
That last in bold.
Has so much straw ever been gathered together in one place before? He must be in danger of creating a singularity of stupid.
Wow, Mikey has really blown a fuse. He must be a really insecure person, if he feels that threatened by people who disagree with him on the internet.
'AdamsRulz is a fascinating example of the cognitive processing that occurs in individuals with below-average intelligence. In his first post, the assumption that Orac didn't know Rachael was taken as evidence that Respectful Insolence is cult-like. In his second post, the fact that he knew her was likewise taken evidence that Respectful Insolence is cult-like.'
Hyperdeath - that's hilarious that you believe I WOULD ASSUME! I'm a female so who's doing the assuming here? Dr. Rachael has 1500+ followers on Twitter (and now almost as many votes). That's QUITE the ratio, compared with Mercola who has almost 17,000 followers and has not yet reached her quota in votes. What does that tell you - if not scientifically - at least mathematically? That led me to ASSUME that she's not all that well known. It also led me to believe that there's a hidden element going on here. I believe that's as fair an assumption as your thinking I'm male.
Why don't you all quit bashing Adams and listen to him for a minute. Do you think you're getting any healthier following the chemically laden path you're on? I don't need science to tell me that people who seem to be doing ALL the right things are dropping like flies. I don't need to be a 'follower' of anyone to 'see' the truth, when I 'hear' it. Nature = Common Sense. Corrupt Scientific Studies = Path of Self Destruction. Choose your poisons wisely :) Mr/Ms Below-Average intelligence! Nice try!
I also noted he doesn't like fluoridated water. Maybe that's the real reason he moved to Central America.
@79 Adamsrulz
"Why don't you all quit bashing Adams and listen to him for a minute."
Well, I did, I went over his website. Went away after 5 min, shocking my head "Nah, no true here".
"Peoples who seem to do all the right things are dropping like flies"
Do you mean peoples like Christiane Maggiore? Hulga-who-can-cure-all-illness, and died of cancer? Or any other of the poor souls who was convinced to treat his/her illness "naturally" and ended up very dead? They certainly did seem to do the right things.
Yes, I know, peoples die in hospitals too. But I have access to documented cases in which "chemical ladden" medicine did save some patients. I am still waiting for proof of whatever Mr Adams is doing is indeed curing peoples.
Absolutely nothing.
Who would vote for someone who chooses to exploit their patients for their own personal financial gain?
There are far cheaper options to provide Vitamin D than a $3,000 tanning bed.
Zerg rush!
All of you going on about our pharma masters obviously haven't got high enough clearance. Our reptilian masters have orchestrated this victory for the forces of Zerg. Now if we could only deal with that pesky David Icke. He knows too much...
I did. All he told me was that 9/11 was a demoloition job.
chemgeek and Orac,
Yes, I want my pharma payment and also a pony.
'For example, even if Respectful Insolence was a cult, the relationship between this contingency, and the contingency of Orac knowing Rachael would be one of non-implication.'
I believe that should read 'WERE a cult' - Hyperdeath - YOU of above-average intelligence should know that OR am I ASSUMING that because you referred to me as having below-average intelligence, you'd consider YOURSELF to be above? Forgive me if I'm wrong and you only think you're of normal intelligence.
So many strawmen killed in this one simple paragraph. Won't somebody think of the strawmen?
Random capitalization = check
Mindless assumption = check
Passive-aggressive tactics = check
Wounded martyr complex = check
Completely twisting words until they make zero sense (aka strawman argument with an extra twist of stupid) = check.
Wow. This is almost creationist level FAIL.
BTW, AdamRulz did you actually try to argue that numbers of people who support something is at all relevant to whether or not something is true? Millions believe that Santa Claus drops down chimneys with presents every December 24, but that doesn't make it true.
This would be funny, if it weren't so pathetic.
What you think is common sense fails when put up to the scrutiny of actually providing sound science supporting Adam's claims.
As in there isn't any.
Okay, "AdamsRulz," let's do that! Let's listen to what he says in his latest missive, "What 'skeptics' really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe":
So, what do we discover when we listen to Mike Adams for a minute? We discover that this man who has spent so much time and published so many words about why vaccines are bad and why they don't work as they're supposed to does not understand even the most elementary principle upon which vaccines are supposed to work!
Skeptics most assuredly do not believe that "the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism[s]"; they believe that the human body has an amazingly complex system for defending against such microorganisms, called the immune system.
Skeptics believe that the immune system is amazingly sophisticated and very effective at its job. However, they believe that humans can do things that improve the immune system's ability to do its job. Before scoffing at that belief, you'll probably want to stop a moment and think about how often Mike Adams promotes this "superfood" or that "nutritional supplement" as having the ability to "boost" or "strengthen" or "revitalize" or at the very least "support" the immune system.
The difference is that Mike Adams has only a vague idea of the actual mechanism by which the intervention he promotes might accomplish this goal. He may say that bee pollen, for instance, boosts immune function with its "unique combination of minerals, vitamins, amino acids and enzymes" - but not only is it very vague what anyone actually means by "boosting" or "supporting" the immune system, but there's no particular idea of why these particular minerals/vitamins/amino acids/enzymes are going to help rather than hurt the immune system.
Skeptics, on the other hand, have a very clear understanding of the principle by which vaccines make the immune system work more effectively: they stimulate the immune system to start producing a robust defense to a microorganism before the person encounters the microorganism in the wild.
For instance, suppose you catch a case of measles (or any other of a number of dangerous infectious diseases) from an infectious neighbor. When it encounters the virus, your immune system will start to produce antibodies to that virus. Given enough time, would your immune system create sufficient antibodies to fight off all the virus load you got from your neighbor? Yes, it would -- but:
1) in the time before the antibodies to deal with the virus are ready, the virus can invade your cells and hijack them to replicate itself exponentially. A relatively "small" infection can grow into a large, large virus load if the immune system isn't ready to fight it.
2) in the time before the antibodies to deal with the virus are ready, the virus can do a lot of damage to your body. Given enough time, your immune system might create the antibodies that can fight off the infection - but not if the virus kills you before those antibodies are produced. And you will not regain your sight, or your hearing, if you lose them to the virus.
So what can you do to avoid the dangerous consequences of giving a virus a head start? Easy -- give the head start to the immune system. Give the immune system a extremely weakened sample of the virus, or even just the antigens, the molecules on the surface of the virus that the immune system recognizes as the markers of a foreign agent. The immune system starts producing antibodies to that agent, and barring really bad luck, it has plenty of time to keep producing those antibodies until your system is fully prepared for an encounter with that agent. This time if you bump into your neighbor and he unknowingly infects you with the measles virus, the antibodies your immune system has already generated are so plentiful in your system, they will likely wipe out the invading measles virus so fast you won't even be aware that you got infected.
Now, note, AdamsRulz, this is what skeptics believe about how vaccines work. There is no way of reconciling skeptics' view that vaccines prepare the immune system and give it a head start with Adams' claim that "Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism". There's just no way!
So when we "listen for a moment" to Adams, what we discover is that, in the best case -- giving Adams the biggest possible benefit of the doubt -- he claims he understands why skeptics are wrong in what they believe, but in reality he does not even know what they believe.
And in the worst case, Adams is deliberately lying to the people who trust him.
I know where my vote goes.
"Choose your poisons wisely :) Mr/Ms Below-Average intelligence!"
I think I heard this line in a TV beer ad.
The Health Ranger has gone completely mental about it
I might take issue with the present perfect tense here. He has quite likely been an attention seeking nutter for a long time and, like many other deluded lunatics and charlatans, has found an outlet in the Internet. One should just accept that he and his ilk are one of the interesting downsides of a free and open Internet.
Of course this is beside the point that he is a medical fraudster and should probably be in prison.
Random capitalization = check
Mindless assumption = check
Passive-aggressive tactics = check
Wounded martyr complex = check
Completely twisting words until they make zero sense (aka strawman argument with an extra twist of stupid) = check.
Wow. This is almost creationist level FAIL.
Ahhh ... but Aquaria - I'm was deemed the one with below-average intelligence so I'm ALLOWED to make all of these mistakes (some of which are not quite true - I might point out). It was 'hyperdeath', the brilliant one, who should think twice before becoming judge and jury. What goes around, comes around, and if he was going to point out MY below-average intelligence, I was going to simply point out his shortcomings, as well.
The mindless assumption was made in reference to someone 'mindlessly assuming' MY intelligence level. Perhaps YOU should do your reading before commenting, as well. And who is the passive aggressive one? (oops - FAIL). I'm not wounded at all. I'm laughing at all of you, who put yourselves on such high and mighty pedestals!
When I try to give Adams the "benefit of the doubt," I doubt that anybody could genuinely be that ignorant, and I am led to think that perhaps he is not as foolish as he sounds, and is knowingly peddling dangerous nonsense for the sake of personal financial gain.
@ pv: but above all, Adams is an *entrepreneur*- he is always selling *something*(including himself). A quick perusal reveals :1.@ HealthRanger- a list of "current projects"- Truth(sic)Publishing,BetterLife Goods,Consumer Wellness Center( a charity?),EcoLed (lighting?),Zeop Media Engine,Arial software;2. @ NaturalNews- he does public speaking,gives courses,leads tours in Ecuador,advertises land sites in Ecuador, shills Moxxor(and other supplements).Interesting how his "educational"(i.e. green, natural,health freedom,etc.) material fits hand-in-glove with his product list.
Oh and don't bother pointing out my justifiable error there. There's an obvious difference between knowing the difference between 'if it was' and 'if it were'. Anyone who doesn't know it, is not 'qualified' to deem my intelligence as below average. Just clarifying that, before aliases like Aquaria feel such urge to jump on it.
So instead of a response, I get mindless pedantry.
The "if... were..." subjunctive rule is on the borderline of obsolescence, and moaning about it simply reveals that you have no better comeback. Did you look for split infinitives as well? Or prepositions at the end of sentences?
As for your sex, there is little difference between a man who can't grasp basic logic and a woman who can't grasp basic logic. Anyway, the stupidest trolls tend to be male, and so I made a reasonable assumption.
You do realise that natural things are made out of chemicals? The "ohhh... scary chemicals..." line won't work here.
I love that even though I'm a radical anti-capitalist, my support of science makes me a tool of the pharmaceutical industry. How can they not understand that many of us don't agree with their business practices but we prefer science to wishful thinking.
My favorite part:
"If water has memory, then homeopathy is full of shit."
I tried to explain this to a person who is fully infected with the woo virus. He was telling me that water has memory and it remembers the 'medicine' in it. I reminded him that the water we drink from the tap, prior to being cleaned was full of feces and most likely blood infected with communicable diseases. Needless to say, he tried to pass this "water knows the good from the bad and 'remembers' just the good stuff" bullshit on me. I was not amused.
To AdamRulz #79
"Nature = Common Sense. Corrupt Scientific Studies = Path of Self Destruction."
ok AdamRulz, if nature is common sense, then why don't you go and eat a bunch of natural almonds. They can't be bad for you can they, since they're natural and couldn't contain CYANIDE!! Or Arsenic, Hemlock, Ricin, or any of the many other NATURAL POISONS. Speaking of Corrupt Scientific Studies, you mean like the corrupt ones that brought us penicillin, which has saved the lives of literally tens of millions since its creation. Or the corrupt scientific studies that helped us harness radiation, used as a treatment for cancer, for without it's discovery, my mother would have died a horribly painful death from breast cancer. So really, before you say that everything natural is good and chemicals are bad, remember, EVERYTHING IS MADE OF CHEMICALS! So yeah, if you don't want medicine, that's cool, you can let yourself die a possibly painful death, just please don't try to force the rest of us to not have access when we need it.
No Gods, No Masters
Cameron
AdamsRulz, I can't help but notice that you're spent a lot of time responding to hyperdeath's hyperbolic reference to you as "of below-average intelligence", and so far you haven't responded to more pertinent issues, such as Mike Adams telling people "Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism" and thus showing himself to either be completely ignorant of the most basic principle of vaccines - a subject upon which he is trying to advise others! - or he is deliberately lying, betraying the readers who trust him.
Are you capable of talking about the issues? If you choose to keep talking about trivialities instead, it will be taken as a "no" answer.
@Denice Walter, I wrote that he is a medical fraudster which I think you might say is one of his entrepreneurial activities. He should be in prison because he is a danger to the public. He is also, imo, barking mad.
'@ pv: but above all, Adams is an *entrepreneur*- he is always selling *something*(including himself). A quick perusal reveals :1.@ HealthRanger- a list of "current projects"- Truth(sic)Publishing,BetterLife Goods,Consumer Wellness Center( a charity?),EcoLed (lighting?),Zeop Media Engine,Arial software;2. @ NaturalNews- he does public speaking,gives courses,leads tours in Ecuador,advertises land sites in Ecuador, shills Moxxor(and other supplements).Interesting how his "educational"(i.e. green, natural,health freedom,etc.) material fits hand-in-glove with his product list.'
So what? Why do you think his 'followers' have a problem with him needing or wanting to make money at what he does? We wouldn't expect him to dedicate his life to helping others selflessly, and we don't view him as a martyr. He spends ALL of his time on his research - yes research - likely night and day, and he needs capital to operate and survive, like anyone else. I'd rather put my $$$ in HIS coffers, than in Big Pharma's any day. At least he's trying to help the world - not destroy it!
AdamRulz -
You asked us "Why don't you all quit bashing Adams and listen to him for a minute." And I did that. And I told you what happened when I listened to Adams for a minute: I found him telling his readers that "Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines." This is absolutely false, no two ways about it: skeptics believe that vaccines work by activating the human body's amazing ability to defend itself against invading microorganisms.
I asked you to respond to the fact that Mike Adams, by telling his readers this untruth, had displayed either astonishing ignorance or cynical dishonesty.
You have not.
Are you capable of dealing with issues rather than personalities? Or is that beyond your abilities?
Denise Walter: "but above all, Adams is an *entrepreneur*- he is always selling *something*(including himself)."
One of his current "articles" is devoted to explaining how Adams will be at a supplement industry trade show in California in March mingling with his "friends" in the industry and looking for "new products to cover* and new companies to interview" for mentions on NaturalNews (at no charge, he hastens to assure us, and of course we'd have no reason to suspect any tie-in with who purchases advertising on NaturalNews).
It's bizarre how the same people who lap up his fulminations about Big Pharma and mainstream media seem to be entirely comfortable with Adams' cozy relationships with the supplement companies (a.k.a. "Big Placebo").
*the products to be exhibited at the show according to Adams include "experimental medicine devices". Wonder what those might be (shudder). Maybe there'll be a sale on genuine Hulda Clark zappers.
I find it amusing that AdamRulz brings up that straw man about real medicine. I just recently posted about my experience that it's the woos who believe the human body is helpless.
You guys missed the greatest part of Health Ranger's post:
⢠Skeptics aren't skeptical about the demolition-style collapse of the World Trade Center 7 building on September 11, 2001 -- a building that was never hit by airplanes. This beautifully-orchestrated collapse of a hardened structure could only have been accomplished with precision explosives. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc...) Astonishingly, "skeptics" have little understanding of the laws of physics. Concrete-and-steel buildings don't magically collapse in a perfect vertical demolition just because of a fire on one floor...
On top of his health woo, he is also a JEWS DID WTC conspiracy guy as well. Should we all give him "a chance", AdamRulz? How do you defend such hateful and paranoid rhetoric?
Hey, if you want to got to Dr. Woo instead of the hospital, go for it. If you're sure Dr. Woo shaking his rattle over you will cure your cancer then go for it. Just don't insist the rest of us follow you to Dr. Woo for cancer treatments. Personally I'd rather take my chances with real medicine than with Dr. Woo and his magic rattle.
So, not only is he a hushaboom nut, he's a no-planer.
My usual hypothesis is quite simple: AdamRulz is one of the many ultra-cynics who believe that evil is the default nature of mankind, therefore conspiracies are easy. She knows for an absolute fact that there's no such thing as a doctor who joined the field for the purpose of protecting their loved ones and fellow human beings from the ravages of disease.
'Or the corrupt scientific studies that helped us harness radiation, used as a treatment for cancer, for without it's discovery, my mother would have died a horribly painful death from breast cancer.'
Sorry about your mother Cameron, but that very radiation destroyed my father's lungs and gave him a horribly painful death - SO NO - I don't agree with you there. It's called 'Radiation Pneumonitis' and many people who receive radiation in the lung area 'acquire' it. I'm not even going to get into the topic of how terrible the invention of radiation has been for the purpose of 'curing' cancer. That's pure BS in my books. Chemo NOR Radiation cure. Perhaps if a body is strong enough to survive it, one might make it through, but it's the exception and not even close to the rule. WHEN are 'they' going to admit that and start spending some of the billions of cancer dollars raised to find a 'real' cure, instead of continuing trying to perfect the same two things that are clearly so damaging and destructive?
I believe there are thousands of studies which have been corrupted into making people believe drugs were safe when BP KNEW differently. Either that OR they didn't know - but they put them all out there for us 'Guinea Pigs' to find out FOR them, the hard way! At least they must have to admit it more now than they used to. The advertisements on TV are laughable, now that they have to indicate all the side effects caused by many of these drugs, and are STILL sucking people in. Um - let's see - would you like to trade your Parkinson's disease for a possible heart attack? Take your pick.
All Mike Adams is trying to do is bring awareness to people that many of the diseases they now suffer from or could end up suffering with are preventable and often curable, by getting rid of toxic chemicals in our homes and the products we use - as well as by using natural, organic foods and supplements and he's correct. The fact that so many of you feel the need to dispute this is truly sad. You're wasting precious time trying to be 'right fighters' instead of utilizing the knowledge that has always been right in front of you. For centuries - in fact. The fact that you're all so threatened by a 'little guy' like Mike, speaks more volumes than any of the Scientific Volumes you must be quoting from. If Mike and what he represents is so insignificant, why would ORAC even bother to discuss him to such great lengths here and on some of his other blogs as well? Does this give your lives all purpose or something?
I'm a lay'man'. I'm not going to be able to answer all of your scientific questions except through my own interpretation. I'm simply here to defend what Mike Adam's represents, through what I'VE learned from him to be true. I don't need any scientific results to know that when I eat organic, raw healthy food I feel MUCH better. That when I get rid of toxic chemicals in my home that I can breathe better. That when I got the 'legal' mercury removed from my teeth that my mouth stopped hurting and I could start chelating the toxic metals from my body. I've tried the 'FDA approved' drugs, mercury added vaccines, and mercury filled teeth. I've gotten ill from them. Now I'm trying new ways, which are working and that's all the proof I need.
Oh, I missed this before:
So I'm a zombie.
"Brainz! Brainz!" [Bypasses Mike Adams because he doesn't have any. "Brainz!"
@AdamRulz
I believe I already pointed out, like many others, my disappointment at Mr Adams fundless assertions.
Care to point me to one of those nasty skeptiks who believe in sticking all at once 900 vax shots in poor little babies (with anti-depressants to top), believe they should drink their toilet water, don't believe in the immune system, don't believe that plants are full of molecules active on the human body, and so on? I don't ask much. Just one.
"We wouldn't expect him to dedicate his life to helping others selflessly, and we don't view him as a martyr. He spends ALL of his time on his research - yes research - likely night and day, and he needs capital to operate and survive, like anyone else."
Funny.
Big Pharma wants to make profits. Oh, proof it's evil and not at all interested in selling good products.
Big Placebo wants to make profits. Oh, it's just so what they can operate and survive, and continue their live-saving research.
Did you say "double standards"?
One of the two is subject to state and federal regulations, customer scrutiny, feed-back from academics, and nasty concurrence. Can you point which one?
This is the last paragraph of Adams' post from which you quoted in your post:
"The voters for the opposition mostly had no idea who or what they were even voting for. They were just doing what they were told by someone else in order to "beat the alternative medicine quacks." Their votes contained reasons like, "I nominate Dr. __ for a Shorty Awards because I was told to." "
Did people do this in a jokey way? He implies that the blank would be for Dr. Rachael, but then why leave it blank. The meaning would be entirely different depending on what name you fill in. Nothing Adams says makes any sense. Every argument he offers only serves to prove the point about himself instead.
@AdamRulz #115
You are sadly mistaken. Your "little guy" as you so affectionately call him sells snake oil as medicine and willfully endangers people who buy into it. That is why we confront your "little guy". What he sells are feel good placebos with NO double blind, peer reviewed evidence to back them up. And by supporting it, you are lending your support to all these attacks on real critical thinking and the principles which have truly enriched your life. Do you enjoy living past the age of 25-35? You have science to thank for that, not wishful thinking. It isn't "teh evul chemikuls" which are creating these problems, these problems have been around far longer then that. Do you really think that cancer is something new? We are some of the first generations where cancer isn't an unstoppable death sentence. So next time your "little guy" tries to peddle some woo woo bullshit on you and many other, ask yourself one thing: was there a control group?
No Gods, No Masters
Cameron
"I'm a lay'man'. I'm not going to be able to answer all of your scientific questions except through my own interpretation."
Oh, God you're going to rub our collective noses in anecdotal evidence, aren't you?
"I don't need any scientific results to know that when I eat organic, raw healthy food I feel MUCH better. That when I get rid of toxic chemicals in my home that I can breathe better. That when I got the 'legal' mercury removed from my teeth that my mouth stopped hurting and I could start chelating the toxic metals from my body."
Placebo, placebo, placebo. Feeling that you know something is in itself very convincing. Unfortunately, you are talking total crap. Seriously, Adams has told you that you have something wrong with you (say, mercury poisoning) and then he gives you the bogus treatment, and nothing changes except you have the warm fuzzy that comes with knowing (read "believing") that you have taken corrective action. The net effect is that you feel better without having ever been sick in the first place. But at least you are out a lot of coin. Having paid out the nose for useless treatments gives you an incentive (not necessarily a conscious one) to not admit that you have been taken for a ride.
Every damned doctor on the planet disagrees with you. Who's more likely to be wrong? Everyone who has spent their entire adult professional lives studying these things or a self-admitted layman?
"Now I'm trying new ways, which are working and that's all the proof I need."
It's amazing that I can type this well, what with the fact that my eyes have rolled back into my skull and gotten stuck there. When you lower your standards of proof, you become a victim to scam artists like Mike Adams. How do you not see that? Seriously. Explain that to me, please.
Also, Dr Rachie should totally call me.
HJ
@Antaeus Feldspar:
(* applauds to your post at #96 *) :D
Actually listening to your "opponent" - check
Has real content and weight - check
Nonexistent or minimal traces of unnecessary rudeness - check
Seamless flow of argument - check
Contains useful points of argument that I can plag- *ahem* ...that I can refer to later - check!
Yup, it is that good, therefore, it wouldn't surprise me if that post becomes invisible to a certain subset of people. What they can't argue with, they tend to ignore and forget.
(* goes back to lurking *)
I'd be willing to bet that AdamRulz doesn't recognize any inconsistency between these two statements.
I'll tell you why we're threatened by Health Danger. Because he's a danger. He tells stupid people like you* that BP** is trying to kill them. And stupid people like you believe him. Then you tell other stupid people about the lies and stupidities Mike Adams is pushing. I don't like people to die of preventable and curable diseases, but that's what you and your hero, Mike "I'm Going To Sue Twitter" Adams are proposing.
You and your hero decry vaccinations. So the eradication of small pox is a myth promulgated by BP. You're probably too young to remember the introduction of the Salk polio vaccine. The town I was living in was one of the places where human testing took place. The parents were asked if they wanted their children to be vaccinated as part of the trial. With the exception of a group of Christian Scientists, every single parent in that town signed their kids up for the trial. Everyone knew how polio killed and crippled millions every year. And in the next five years there was only one case of juvenile polio in that town. That kid's parents were Christian Scientists.
It's people like you who're responsible for outbreaks of polio, measles, mumps, and other preventable diseases. Why? Because you have an irrational fear of real medicine. This fear is promoted by people like Mike Adams.
Mike Adams is a threat to rational people like me. That's why we spend the time and effort exposing his lies.
*Please don't go all passive-aggressive on me for calling you stupid. I call you stupid because you exhibit stupid thinking.
**I've never trusted British Petroleum. Tea drinkers the lot of them. You have to watch yourself when there's tea drinkers around.
Oh, fun. Robotic repetition of propaganda. Do try to pay attention.
No God: True, most of us are atheists, though bear in mind that's not much of a loss. Gods tend to be described either as vicious tyrants enforcing arbitrary anti-love rules or nebulous fluff that doesn't do anything.
No spirit: Define "spirit". If you're talking about those vague ghosty things that those guys hunt on decaying television networks, no. If you're talking about love, passion, and so forth, we still believe in that, despite your best efforts at ridiculing us for caring about anything.
No angels, no guides: We don't need angels to do good. We have plenty of human guides to look up to. We can also strive to become such guides. Living is not a passive process.
No creative force: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What, do you think mankind has been sitting on its posterior all this time? Just look at the amazing things we've been able to accomplish! Space travel! Prevention of diseases to the point that we can take health for granted! Instant communication between people on opposite sides of the world!
All the while, woos do nothing but chant, "Impossible, impossible, impossible!" As a skeptic, I despise the word, "Impossible." I do my best to never use it without appropriate caveats. The worst I ever say and/or mean about something is "extremely unlikely." When a woo says "impossible," they mean it in a dogmatic manner. That's why I'm sure it's one of their favorite words.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! The universe is a vast, wondrous place to live, full of things above and beyond our imagination. Of course, it's humbling, but just because the universe doesn't revolve around you doesn't mean that it's horrible. I'm glad to be here in these exciting times of accelerating discovery.
AdamRulz before you make patently ridiculous statements like:
You might want to look to the scientific evidence. Adam's fellow quack physician, Doctor Gonzalez, made the same claim- arguing radiation therapy wasn't useful and instead we should be using coffee enema and organic foods.
So a study was performed. And the results were:
The Gonzalez treatment group lasted shorter than if they had done nothing at all (granted probably a statistical anomaly). The chemo group lasted 4 times longer.
Read for yourself:
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/JCO.2009.22.8429v1
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=883
Dog,
I was always under the impression that because there is no God that human beings have complete and absolute free will. How can people have legitimate free will over moral matters if in fact a omnipotent creator figure created and transfixed eternal laws at the beginning of the universe? In this situation, to use Adam's analogy, we are zombies or merely puppets of greater forces. Think the Homeric Greeks.
So in reality, Adam's theory is ass-backwards. Only by rejecting the notion of a creator figure and the irrational superstition that goes with it, can man finally be free from the sleep of reason. The understanding that laws rise not from divinity but reason. That man must make progress here on earth rather than waiting for the guy with the big beard to clean up our mess for us.
I liked one thing Qualia Soup said. It went something like this: "Self-contradicting ideas aren't profound, they're absurd."
Pretty well sums up all the contradictions that occur when you assign attributes to the stone idol of the day. That's why so many prefer to go the route of the nebulous vapor god: Doesn't do anything, so it can't be disproven.
But more directly, I'm glad I'm the captain of my (physical/material) soul. No arbitrary tyrants to steal my determination.
Bronze Dog: "True, most of us (skeptics) are atheists"
You sure about that? I'm not, though a certain dim-witted chiropractor accused me of such on here recently. I'd expect that most supporters of evidence-based medicine are either religious or at least hedging their bets by identifying as agnostics. What we're not are hapless believers in the concept that "God made natural remedies, so they're good", ignoring all the supposedly God-created natural things that are toxic in sufficient dose or actively out to do us in. God (and/or eons of evolution) gave us brains to think for ourselves and free will, a concept most alties find extremely scary.
It's much easier for them to follow the Conspiracy Du Jour and swallow whatever crap the Adamses and their commercial sponsors shove at them.
I'm very sorry for the loss of your father. It is always painful to lose a loved one, and it must be very painful to know that a procedure that was conducted to try and save that loved one's life was instead what ended it.
However, no amount of emotional pain gives one the moral right to ignore reality. The reality is that chemotherapy and radiotherapy do save lives; the survival statistics are there to show it. Are they perfect? Definitely not. Are they without side effects? Definitely not. Have they made it "the rule" that people survive their cancer? Only for some cancers, not for all. But that doesn't stop them from being, provably, the intervention we have that gives cancer sufferers the best chance at survival.
There is an old saying: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." Your posts show a great desire to have your own facts, without concern for whether they are, actually, facts.
Well, whether you believe it isn't - to put it bluntly - of very much importance at all. It's whether the facts support such an accusation or not.
No, sorry. That is most definitely not "all" he's trying to do. As I have brought to your attention and asked you to respond to repeatedly, he's also spreading misinformation about vaccination. He's trying to obstruct awareness that many of the diseases we now suffer from or could end up suffering from are preventable through vaccination.
Now, you may say "that's because he doesn't believe vaccines work." Well, see above about "you are not entitled to your own facts." The facts show that vaccines work. But even in the absence of any facts about the effectiveness of vaccines, Mike Adams showed that he didn't even understand the whole basis of vaccines! Whether you believe that was a calculated decision on his part to lie about something he wants people to turn away from, or "merely" abject ignorance of the very subject where he claims to have greater knowledge than the experts - how can you put faith in the other things he says?
See above about "you are not entitled to your own facts." You say that you "know" that the things Adams tells you are true because of the results you perceived when you tried them out on yourself. You're basically saying that you believe Adams because of experiments done with a sample group of one. Well, an experiment with a sample group of one is like a poll with an interview size of one: it doesn't mean much at all.
I'm agnostic toward creator conceptions in the same way I am agnostic toward my schizophrenic aunt's lovely conspiracies and imaginary creatures. Science cannot falsify anything, only point to a complete lack of evidence. God falls under this exact category.
I think most scientific people tend to see things similarly.
B166er (#105)
WTF? That doesn't even make sense according to their own retarded rules. Isn't it supposed to be the "bad" (the things that would cause the symptoms in a healthy person) that makes the cure work in the first place?
(#119)
Over on an Amazon forum that someone once tried telling me how science was unreliable because scientists "control" experiments, suppressing all the possible outcomes and hiding the "truth" from people. Taught me not to count on morons knowing why control groups are a good thing. Heh.
Seems my comment where I conceded to correction may have gotten eaten. I was probably stuck thinking more about my specific blogging circles, since I've been dealing with my own personal troll belching out straw men, along with those of closer friends' places. Orac does attract a much larger crowd of commentators, of course.
Why don't you all quit bashing Adams and listen to him for a minute. Do you think you're getting any healthier following the chemically laden path you're on? I don't need science to tell me that people who seem to be doing ALL the right things are dropping like flies.
=======================
If by "dropping like flies" you mean "living longer than ever" then I agree.
trrll @ 101
I am reminded of this exchange from the Dr Who serial "City of Death":
"I don't think he's a stupid as he seems."
"My dear, *nobody* could be as stupid he he seems."
It's sometimes difficult to sort the "true believer" quacks from the conscious frauds. Lacking a window into their minds, one can only speculate whether they really believe the stuff they're claiming. Still, in Adams case, he really doth protest too much.
Why is it that Adams and many others participate in an obvious conflict of interest( pushing the therapies they happen to sell online) and this is studiously ignored by these people while the same offense from "big pharma" induces(perhaps rightfully if true) shrieking and incontinence?
I'm going to set the record straight here for those of you who seem to think that Mike Adams is my 'prophet'. I've been studying all of this information for years - ever since I got sick after a flu shot, and remained sick. I tried to get my hands on any and all information I could about vaccines, and mercury and autism and ADHD, etc., etc. I worked tirelessly, and bookmarked many sites with valuable information about mercury and 'thimerosal'. I discovered some information on vaccines that was well documented, and came from what I considered to be a worthy source (all pre-Mike Adams days), which concluded that many of the vaccines created were for diseases that had already begun to phase out on their own and with time would have phased out altogether, with NO vaccine at all, but rather, from people building up their own antibodies and immunity, which would eventually have eradicated these illnesses altogether. That computer crashed or I might be able to pull up these Stats for argument's sake. Suffice it to say, that I did my own research and came to my own conclusions regarding mercury, and decided to have my 50 or so - mercury fillings removed and replaced with a compatible composite. (oh I know I don't have 50 teeth, but each tooth can be filled separately in quadrants), and many of mine were. I attribute that in part to the fact that the mercury was indeed causing the teeth to decay even more rapidly - but I'm not going to argue that here. I believe swallowing broken fillings and dentists improperly drilling out fillings, which I inevitably ingested, created a toxic environment within my body. Especially that, combined with the extra jolt of mercury in the flu shot. I was also a big fish eater back then, so I believe I was suffering from mercury toxicity. Not only that, but convinced that the constant flu-like symptoms that wouldn't go away, were directly linked to the flu shot. I didn't need Mike Adams to tell me that, but he certainly helped confirm it years later.
I took these matters into my own hands at the time, because I was disgusted with many physicians saying it was 'all in my head', which ultimately it clearly wasn't to me. As far as I was concerned, my system was breaking down BECAUSE of these toxic and foreign substances which were permeating it.
THEN - several years later, I happened upon Mike Adams, and I was very pleased to see someone who was willing to go up against 'giants' like you people and who you represent, and not back down after the first criticism of many to come. I can't help but admire him for doing that. Just answering to you here has been exhausting for me, so I can't even imagine what he must go through. He can't be bothered trying to convince all of you, and I can see why. What a daunting task. I don't necessarily believe absolutely everything he says and take some things with 'a grain of salt', but for the most part, this guy IS my hero for doing something that many are fearful of doing - simply because of peanut galleries like this who just want to rip him to shreds. It takes a lot of guts to go against the grain - but not many of you would know that, considering you follow the straight and narrow. I don't mean that as a slight, but I'm telling you that you can read all the books you want, and read all the PubMEd articles, but when it comes down to brass tacks YOU'VE ALSO GOT TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE! Sorry, but MANY doctors are simply NOT doing this when it comes to things they are not familiar with in their studies. Many refuse to familiarize themselves with good preventative tools, which DO include all of the natural things that Mike 'pushes'. Therefore, it isn't their category to work with, and pushing drugs just isn't cutting it for people any longer. They, like me, are looking for other answers and if that's threatening to any of you, perhaps you need to understand just why.
As far as I'm concerned, doctors DO have a place and it is AFTER THE FACT. After the accident. After the person is already so ill that they need something fast and strong. They are not useful for prevention (except perhaps someone like Dr. Oz, who actually takes the time to assess what's really happening) - and just for your information - he DID get the H1N1 vaccine for the 'sake' of the show (I believe) - but his wife and daughter didn't. That tells me what I need to know.
Anyway - that's all for now folks. It's been a blast, but I'm outta here - where I clearly don't belong - nor do I think I want to.
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
Wow. Mike Adams has totally lost it:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/01/a_pyromaniac_in_a_field_of_st…
No, that tells you what you think he knows, and if what you think he thinks is what i think you think, then neither of you know what you think you know(cripes that hurt!). Do yourself a favor and look up the REAL stats on the H1N1,I administer the thing daily and have NO untoward effects reported since starting to administer them 3 mos ago( and yes, I DO ask). I would also infer that you know very little about what most physicians know about prevention; discussing these issues with patients makes up a large part of my time.Am I going to push crap of dubious value with very little evidence in hand? No, because I'm not going to waste my patients time and money for them and I don't have a product to sell them other than advice and experience(The vaccines barely cover administration costs and aren't moneymakers for most offices, believe it or not).
AdamRulz (#135)
Bullshit. They look at the evidence. If there's evidence to support certain preventatives, they encourage people in them. If the evidence points to the preventative being useless or harmful, then why would they push a patient into playing with his or her health? That's perverse and unethical.
Weren't you just criticizing doctors for not getting on the prevention bandwagon in your last paragraph? What is the benefit in listening to the people when the people are self-contradictory nitwits?
He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
You're actually kinda funny ORAC. If I didn't know better, I'd think you wanted me to stay. I'm kind of like a fish being thrown to the Piranha here, who want to devour me for my implied 'idiocy' and 'stupidity'. For my lack of intelligence, etc. Yet funny for as 'stupid' as I sound, you still believe that I may just have the ability to see 'your' light. Hmmm ....
I don't believe that attacking anyone - whether it be to you people here, or your attacks on Mike Adams are accomplishing anything. He's doing the same sort of thing, but through his website, and I gather that you're all taking it in. YOU KNOW that he is referring to you whom he calls the 'skeptics' and you ARE taking it personally.
Perhaps you have some valid points. Perhaps does he. As long as both of you refuse to hear what the other has to say, you're both at extremes. Part of finding a solution here is not just agreeing to disagree. As long as you're both vicious as piranha, it is a standstill. I personally believe in Integrative medicine, but as yet there aren't many out there who practice it. Dr. Andrew Weil is one of a handful, but I believe that as long as so many are unwilling to budge, we will never get there. Anyone you wish to call a 'Quack' has a lifelong project to prove he doesn't deserve that title, and that's an arduous task, especially if he's trying to convince people who refuse to budge.
Rincewind - I don't believe that the damage of all vaccinations is apparent immediately. If you had the time or inkling, the thing to do would be to follow up these patients long term - which is really impossible for you to do. Even if years later, they came into your office with some disease, you would not likely associate it with that very vaccine, so it impossible for you to KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, that the illness was not caused by the vaccine. That is why, not matter how much Scientific evidence you have now, that you simply do not know, with all certainty. Nor do the people who produce those vaccines. Since everyone here wants 'proof' before they believe something or not, I'd like some proof that there aren't long term effects on many drugs, vaccines, etc. There's NO WAY that you can tell me what the long term side effects are on MANY things you subject your patients to. I know that there are long term studies done on some things, with groups of patients, but results are very difficult to determine over time, and I believe that if each of those people developed a variety of illnesses over the years, those Stats would not even be attributed to a vaccine. But what - just what if it were, but since everyone in your field refused to believe it could be a possibility, looked the other way?
I appreciate physicians for what they do know. I don't appreciate them for what they don't know but still profess to. You can't listen to the people, if you refuse to hear what they're saying, because it doesn't line up with what you have in your books. I don't expect you to know everything, but I do expect you to keep an open mind (you, meaning all physicians). Until that time, people like me (and there are many) WILL become our own doctors, to some degree, and in our quest we may just learn things that you don't know, because we do have an open mind.
I AGREE 'with' what YOU say Adamrulz! DOCTORS should do what is best, which is what 'the' people want 'them' to do, such as giving them magic potions.
Even though 'I' have no FORMAL medical training, I know what is good for me. The 'proof' is in how I FEEL. Perhaps Orac has some 'good' POINTS, perhaps does he. But I KNOW that homeopathy is the WATER of 'life'.
And a separate one for you A. Noyd. I'm kind of A. Noyd with your response - you 'nitwit'. I just had to say it. As soon as you revert to namecalling, you lose all credibility.
'If the evidence points to the preventative being useless or harmful, then why would they push a patient into playing with his or her health? That's perverse and unethical.'
Who are you to decide what is useless or harmful, until you've studied the effects of these things yourself? Have you studied herbalogy? What about Chinese medicine? You 'play' with people's health every day, because unless you know everything there is to know about what you're administering, which is impossible, how can you know with ALL certainty that you are giving anything more than a quick fix - band-aid, which can have terrible long term effects? That's not to say that you don't try to be important or helpful, but simply to imply that you DON'T have all the answers, nor will you ever.
'Weren't you just criticizing doctors for not getting on the prevention bandwagon in your last paragraph? What is the benefit in listening to the people when the people are self-contradictory nitwits?'
YES - I was and still am - but since most don't - why not leave it up to someone who cares to, and accept them as part of 'your team'? There's nothing self-contradictory about that at all. Many don't know HOW to get on the prevention bandwagon, because they refuse to acknowledge things like the real cause of many illnesses. As long as they continue to follow everything the FDA approves as gospel, they simply can't think outside the box. If you really want to listen to the patients, you'd go to the thousands of message boards, where they talk about the drugs they're taking, their illnesses and how they're affected. That's what I mean by listening. It's NOT in your books, but it IS available. If doctors can't or don't have time to help people deal with prevention, THEN they should realize that people like Mike Adams can and will, and that perhaps there is a place for these so-called 'quacks'. Prevention involves things you'd likely never even think to mention to your patients. Would you tell them things like 'get rid of those Glade air fresheners' or 'don't use microwaves to heat your food with', or to 'stop eating processed and genetically modified foods laden with pesticides' (to name but a few)? Of course you wouldn't, because you aren't able to see that many of these things may be causing your patient's illnesses in the first place. That's part of paying attention to what the patients are saying. They're sick and they need help, but if all you can do is put a band-aid on it, and not realize that their illnesses could easily be caused by severe malnutrition (from eating the above mentioned foods) - then no - you are not dealing with prevention. If I represent just ONE of your patients, and you think of us as 'nitwits', you'd likely better get out of the field. You're not helping anyone, if you're going in with that attitude.
AdamsLulz wrote:
...people conduct epidemiological studies, and do the statistics. Without this sort of work it is also impossible for you to KNOW that vaccines are harmful, by the way. Have you tried looking at the studies?
Lmao, wow. Look at the last set of terms on his website. Apparantly we owe him a lot of money
What's really sad about AdamsRulz's getting his 50 mercury-containing fillings removed (apart from the expense and pain involved) is that the composite fillings they were replaced with are just jam full of toxins. That labful of chemicals in composite fillings have been shown to inhibit DNA and RNA synthesis and exhibit cytotoxicity in vitro!
So in addition to lining the pockets of unethical no-mercury dentists, AdamsRulz now has a mouth full of toxins that sound far worse than anything he had before.
What will you do now?!??
I am a little confused by what appears to be Mr. Adams position relative to the events of 9/11. Is it his hypothesis that planes brought down all the buildings of the WT Center except for building 7 which, instead, was brought down by explosives? This doesn't make much sense.
"had already begun to phase out on their own and with time would have phased out altogether"
Well, no.
Without a polio vaccine we would still be having large-scale outbreaks of the disease.
Swimming pools, schools, sports stadiums, shopping malls, etc. (anyplace where large numbers of people gather) would still be shutting down on a regular basis whenever a new polio outbreak occurred.
People forget just how incredibly contagious diseases with long-term consequences like measles, polio, smallpox are from human to human.
Better sanitation or more frequent handwashing or a better diet don't make an impact on the transmission of those diseases from person to person.
Oooh. Props to Coryat @ 141. 9/10, wuith a point lost only because you were too explicit in the use of 'magic'...the key for a full-on Poe would be to use a trendy term such as 'wellness' or 'qi'.
Adamsrulz, you are unbelievable. Just...your naivete in regards to the alt med industry as though it's just a persecuted and misunderstood little business trying to help people...yet big pharma is just...ebullll.
Right...
I have nothing worthy to add to this conversation because the whole blog is ridiculous to begin with. You are like a bunch of children being bullies on the playground. Game playing and tricking and going out of your way to distort polls is not science. I would not have voted for Adams or Mercola in a million years, but you supposed scientists are a joke. A bunch of weirdos deriving comfort from each other and your opinions. Have you ever wondered why it has been basically the same posters over and over for years. You are all as worthless as this blog. Laughable...that about sums it up.
"I have nothing worthy to add to this conversation"
Agreed.
No, we're not all skeptics. My girlfriend, who is a somewhat-observant believing Jew, is if anything more cautious than I am: she's the engineer, I'm the one with a liberal arts degree. And neither of us can figure out anything useful to say to her relative who actually said "How can you be so heartless as to deny people this treatment just because it doesn't work?"
Gods are irrelevant here: you can deny them entirely, you can go to shul every week, you can chant to Ganesh before you do your research. The point is whether you approach the medical questions scientifically. And someone can be a thorough, careful scientist whatever they believe, and someone can cut corners or accept all sorts of woo without actually believing in god.
How about: "How can you be so heartless as to deny people the hope of owning the Brooklyn Bridge just because the guy selling it doesn't actually own it?"
The guy who writes this blog is a fool, and anyone with half a brain can see that. Of course, most of his readers are not only pushing drugs, but taking them too, so that might explain things.
By the way, as with so many of this writer's half-assed and incorrect arguments, according to the rules, only the new Twitter accounts votes should have been deleted, not all of them. But far be it for this writer to get the facts straight.
This is far from the first time I've seen unintelligent arguments from this writer. Probably too many of his own drugs are affecting his brain. But at least he admits he's being paid.
The guy who writes this blog is a fool, and anyone with half a brain can see that. Of course, most of his readers are not only pushing drugs, but taking them too, so that might explain things.
By the way, as with so many of this writer's half-assed and incorrect arguments, according to the rules, only the new Twitter accounts votes should have been deleted, not all of them. But far be it for this writer to get the facts straight.
This is far from the first time I've seen unintelligent arguments from this writer. Probably too many of his own drugs are affecting his brain. But at least he admits he's being paid.
AdamRulz (#140)
Oh, we hear what he says. And it just reinforces that we're at the extreme end of actually accepting reality and he's at the extreme end of being a crazy ass nutbar with no hold on reality whatsoever.
Here's an idea. Just get reality to agree to change so that integrative medicine isn't asking doctors to mix fake, ineffective medicine with real, effective medicine, and it'll all be peachy.
And there are established ways to do that. Such as using proper blinding and randomization to show that a new treatment actually works. Being willing to give up on a treatment that consistently fails such trials. Learning what parsimony is and applying it correctly. Responding to challenges with data rather than lawsuits and conspiracy theories. Embracing reality rather than inventing fantasies. It's really quite simple.
(#142)
Yeah, the typical fallback of a person who sucks at arguing. "You called me naaaames, so I can ignore anything you saaaay." But you're still gonna give me a page long response?
Hey, ask yourself that question. Ask your "miracle workers" like Mikey and Mercola. "Studying" something is a bit more difficult than you realize. It doesn't come down to reading a book and seeing if it appeals to your preconceptions. If you're not going to accept that science works and the rules for testing are there for a reason, then you've literally no way to know what works and what doesn't. The best you can say is something seems to work. And prescribing treatments or medications based on what seems to work is ridiculous. More so when we have ways to see if those things really work.
A little. A few herbs work as advertised, but not as well, not as predictably and not as safely as their refined pharmaceutical cousins. Certainly not without side effects or complications. Most of them are bunk.
Not really, but the same deal applies.
Durrh, I'm not a doctor. And this is a stupid argument. If I were a doc, I'd make sure I knew everything I could about what I was administering. I trust my docs to do the same. Guess what? It works out really well. This is another question you should be asking Mikey and Mercola, by the way. Part of why they get so much shit is that they don't know what they're administering. They don't know what real doctors are administering, either.
No kidding. Having all the answers is not a requirement for doing real medicine. It's about a commitment to trying to know as much a possible. It works rather well, too. We live longer and survive so much that killed us a century ago. Or a few decades ago. The likes of Mikey and Mercola not only don't have all the answers, they have fewer than real doctors do. And if they are selling you "perfect health" then they're liars.
Hey, maybe when the prevention nimrods start subjecting their oh-so awesome treatments and supplements and diets to testing, that'll happen. You know, expose them to reality and see if they fly.
Yeah, well, no one's going to take you seriously about the "real cause" of anything when you don't understand science.
First, no one does that. Second, there's no virtue in thinking outside the box if you never apply your ideas to reality. You're awed by nothing more than the (well deserved) outsider status of the Mikeys and Mercolas, which they abuse to promote themselves as mavericks when really they're unethical hacks, hucksters and frauds.
And that's a stupid way to do medicine. People suck at correctly attributing cause. Worse, people's expectations can affect their response or perception of response and message boards tend to build up expectations. This is precisely why blinded, controlled trials are so important. That you would suggest doctors change how they practice medicine based on what people say on message boards shows, perhaps more than anything, your extreme ignorance.
Hey, when the scientific studies are done and the evidence shows such things are dangerous, I will gladly support any doctor telling patients not to nuke their GMO foods while snorting air fresheners.
I'll point out that listening to the fears of patients is important in a way. Acknowledging these fears and trying to lay them to rest is something a good doctor will do. But to assume that every fear has a basis in reality is absurd and dangerous. People are stupid. Even doctors are stupid. But everyone has a tool to minimize that stupidity and it's called science. The nitwits are those who proclaim they know this cause or that effect while rejecting and demonizing science.
Just... LOL!!
WIOOI:
You might notice that in Orac's less satirical post on the subject he explicitly agreed with your position on the voting:
But hey, why let minor things like facts get in the way of your sad little rant? Not like you had any to support it in the first place.
What does "AdamsRulz" think of the chemical substance dihydrogen monoxide? Should we ban it?
Doesn't take much to say someone has unintelligent arguments, but it does take something to actually name those arguments and then explain why they are unintelligent?
So big shot, care to give it a whirl or are you just going to act like a seagull and fly in, shit all over the place and fly off?
Do we have a Mike Adams sighting here?
Could be, sounds about right.
@Tis
Everyone knew how polio killed and crippled millions every year.
Where was this? On Earth? When?
Good grief that's a giant bucket of logical fail.
It's also impossible to know that the pair of polyester pants you wore at that raucous Halloween party 15 years ago didn't cause it.
@162:
Did you have a point other than that "millions a year" is a pretty-clearly-hyperbolic overestimate? I suspect not; using pointless nitpicking in an attempt to overturn an entire case over a meaningless point is pretty par for the course for you.
Sid@162:
In the US alone, 13K to 20K cases annually before introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1955.
"The guy who writes this blog is a fool, and anyone with half a brain can see that."
I think I've found the problem. Those of us with whole brains aren't seeing it the same way as those of you with half brains see it.
(also waiting with baited breath for the obligatory "but all those people who died were in Africa so they don't count" from Sid)
"Everyone knew how polio killed and crippled millions every year."
Sid; Where was this? On Earth? When?"
This sounds like an accurate figure to me for global polio deaths and crippling injuries annually before vaccination - oh wait, that's right - Sid has demonstrated to us before that in his opinion the death and injury toll from infectious diseases outside the United States is trivial, so naturally the numbers would sound unrealistic to him.
Message to Planet Sid: as of the late '70s it was estimated that from 254,000 to over 600,000 people crippled by polio were living in the U.S. - a tragedy we don't experience these days thanks to the polio vaccine.
Of course antivaxers never acknowledge any consequences to vaccine-preventable disease other than death (and even there they minimize the toll), but to the many crippled for life by polio and/or confined to iron lungs, those consequences have had great significance.
Oh, and the WHO has estimated that worldwide, close to 3 million die every year from vaccine-preventable diseases, not to mention many more permanently injured. We could be cutting into that mortality rate more effectively if it wasn't for the misinformation spread by antivaxers.
Speaking of Africa, is there any record of the African polio epidemics that necessitated the WHO's massive polio eradication program there?
@Bacon
This sounds like an accurate figure to me...
Based on what?
Mike Adams tried to have DrRachie disqualified before the Shorty Awards disqualified Adams. In the extended (free registration required) part of his first tantrum after disqualification...
(My bold)
Adams asked the Shorty people to disqualify DrRachie, on the unsupported grounds that "the voters don't know who she is" (erm, she's a co-host of one of the more popular skeptical podcasts, so loads of people know her). It was Adams who started waving the disqualification card. But when Adams was later disqualified because he received lots of ineligble votes - votes which actually broke the contest rules - he bleats about being the downtrodden victim of contest organisers who should just have discounted the ineligible votes and certainly shouldn't have disqualified anyone.
Well heck, Mike, I wonder where the Shorty organisers first got the idea of disqualifying someone based on them receiving bad votes? Maybe... maybe they got an e-mail from a candidate for one of the prizes, and the idea stuck in their heads?
@Sid
The 1988 WHO program was a world-wide program. Hard to globally eradicate a disease if you don't include Africa in the vaccination attempts. Much to the chagrin of "but it's only africa who cares?" crowd, I'm sure.
More information for Planet Sid:
In 1988, the year that a major global effort to eradicate polio was begun, it's estimated that more than 350,000 children were paralyzed by polio. That figure does not include deaths from the disease.
As of 2008, the number of children paralyzed annually worldwide by polio was down to less than 1700. Still unacceptably high, but an enormous improvement, thanks largely to vaccination.
@Bacon
Thanks.
I love those WHO estimates. Who else could turn 35,000 cases into 350,000. Anyway I'm not seeing a lot of detail as to how the 350,000 number was arrived at.
...I think they just made it up
When Sid the troll is confronted with the facts and numbers he sticks his fingers in his ears and claims the numbers are made up - what a pathetic ignoramus.
Heres an Idea Sid, why don't you look it up.
You may learn something
I suspect your decision will fall on deaf ears
That will be the day!
Based on what?
Your need to support your wild conspiracy theories or something substantive?
Based on the million UN troops hiding in American National Parks waiting on the secret orders to move out and forcibly vaccinate everyone.
I guess if you call any case of lameness polio, you can invent any number you want
This accusation, of course, requires evidence that they did in fact "call any case of lameness polio." I predict Sid will refuse to provide such. Probably by completely ignoring the objection and treating the accusation as conclusively proven by dint of simple assertion.
Again, basing that on what?
Do you think when you throw out baseless charges like the one above you really are making a good case for anything other than your own need for self confirming support for your little pet conspiracy theories?
http://medind.nic.in/ibv/t98/i4/ibvt98i4p311.pdf
In each lameness survey, a sample
of 6000 children of 5-9 years (10,000
children of 0-4 years in 1989 and 1992) of
age was sought in 30 randomly selected
clusters Children with leg lameness or deformity
were identified and listed Cases
were then examined by a physician for
compatibility with poliomyelitis defined as
the acute onset of AFP without sensory
change As described by LaForce
Based on the incidence revealed by
lameness surveys, we estimated polio cases
which occurred during the period covered
by these surveys
...seems rather arbitrary
"arbitrary"?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
how so?
Which isn't even similar to "call[ing] any case of lameness polio."
If you want to object to the methodology of ascertainment, then you'll need to do a lot better than "seems rather arbitrary." You know, like provide some reason why it's incorrect instead of arguing from incredulity.
Let's also note that the point of the paper was to compare that method to reported cases to examine trends in the percentage of cases reported; it's not per se a measurement of incidence.
And even if we were to assume arguendo that this methodology leads to an overestimate, that would say absolutely nothing about the number Bacon cited unless you could show that that paper relied upon your cited paper for their incidence numbers.
In other words, you cited a completely random paper that is entirely unrelated to your assertion and avails you not at all.
A bit better than I expected - at least you gave the APPEARANCE of presenting evidence - but still, no real support whatsoever.
"arbitrary"?
You keep using that word.
(I used it once)
-------------------------
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Arbitrary: based on or subject to individual discretion or preference
------------------
Here are a couple of arguments as to why it's arbitrary
CDC
Laboratory studies, especially attempted poliovirus isolation, are critical to rule out or confirm the diagnosis of paralytic poliomyelitis.
and
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/22/2/298.pdf
No single operational clinical case definition
of AFP or paralytic poliomyelitis that combines both
high sensitivity and high specificity has emerged
AFP is a complex clinical syndrome with a broad array of
potential etiologies.
Why don't you address the more critical point that your citation has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your unfounded accusations?
If you could rephrase that in an understandable, specific way, I'd be happy to address your concerns.
And?
Please explain how your comment at 187 helps you in any way?
Sid:
Never saw The Princess Bride, did you?
They are not considering ALL cases of AFP as polio. They are narrowing it down using a clinical definition of polio for a population study. This is in fact how polio used to be diagnosed before the appropriate lab tests were widely available. As such, there may be an occasional non-polio AFP in the group (Guillian-Barre comes to mind), however, I estimate that there would be so few cases that it wouldn't affect the statistics.
The statement that lab tests are critical to rule out paralytic poliomyelitis is meant for diagnosis of the individual case in our present environment - that is, an extremely unusual diagnosis (thank you, Dr. Salk) of an unusual medical problem. In an endemic area with poor vaccination coverage, the vast majority of cases of AFP are going to be a result of polio, especially if narrowed down by clinical criteria, as above.
Context is everything.
In an endemic area with poor vaccination coverage, the vast majority of cases of AFP are going to be a result of polio,
...and this is based on what?
This is silly...I read an article where Mike Adams told his followers NOT to vote with a new account. He can't control it if they do it anyways. Sure, don't count the votes from new accounts. That is fine. But that doesn't mean that Mike Adams or Dr. Mercola did anything fraudulent. They should still be allowed to stay in the running.
Did you ever think that MAYBE....just MAYBE people in the natural health community were really excited to actually have a fighting chance and that is why so many people are voting for them? There are more alternative health supporters out there then you realize, apparently.
Britt, did you even read WHY people object to Mercola and Adams? Their representation of the natural health community is crap. If there ever really was a consistent aspect of "natural" health but that's its own little funbag. Point being, there being a lot of natural health care supporters does not constitute it relevant and does not disprove what is being discussed here...so what's your point?
" Sure, don't count the votes from new accounts. That is fine. But that doesn't mean that Mike Adams or Dr. Mercola did anything fraudulent. They should still be allowed to stay in the running. "
And again, most people commenting here (and the blog author as well), AGREE with this - if there truly was no fraudulent activity on the part of Adams (or Mercola - who hasn't been disqualified, as far as I know), they shouldn't be thrown out of the awards. Let them lose or win under a fair contest. But it's not like we have any control over that here...
Indeed, Mike Adams should not be held responsible for the fraudulent and/or corrupt behaviour of his followers.
As to whether his behaviour after he got banned brings into question whether he should ever be allowed to enter again, well that's another issue.
Since Mercola just lost about 1300 votes but DIDN'T get disqualified, what are the chances Adams did something to get himself disqualified - like, say, threaten to sue the Shorty Awards? Just a thought.
'You can't slander or defame a treatment like homeopathy.'
Thanks for the lesson....That's such good news for us readers! Chemotherapy is a scam scam scam scam!!!! Yep, and that can't be slander or defamation! :)
check out the dead man musings conspiracy forum!
Joseph--
That's a basic legal principle: you can't slander or libel a principle or idea, only a person. Whether you can libel/slander a group depends in part on how large it is, and how identifiable the members are. For example, if someone were to claim "Armstrong and Aldrin lied about the moon landing," that would be libel/slander and those men could sue. If someone says "Scientists faked the moon landing, that's too large and vague.
The point isn't that homeopathy is in fact crap. It's that it isn't a person, so slander and libel law don't apply. I could say something false and nasty about homeopathy, and it still wouldn't be slander.
(I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.)
Indeed. It is, however, a .
Let's try that again without the broken HTML.
Indeed. It is, however, a particularly stupid lie.
go ahead, take your swine flu jabs, fucking sheeps.
dan, did you spend the last seven weeks staring at the computer screen trying to come up with that "witty" rejoinder?
What is all this fuss about Mike Adams? Any rational minded people know that bacteria lived, and thrived for billions of years, generation after generation by studying "peer-reviewed research" in science journals, and eating and medicating themselves with what was "supported" by all this unbiased research.
Homeopathy may be a fraud, but how is it, when you see things in reverse, minute amounts of peanut can cause severe reaction to those with peanut allergy? Sometimes simple explanations might seem plausible, but may not be true in a biological system.
Why can't cranks learn to organize their thoughts in paragraphs? Is it because if they did, their thoughts would be organized enough that they could see and correct the glaring flaws in them? "hm" jumps around between three, perhaps four topics in just four sentences.
Are you saying that you didn't read the post, or that you couldn't comprehend the post? We can't help you with your reading comprehension difficulties unless we know where your failure occurred.
Reversing your sarcasm, your argument equates to the following:
1) Bacteria didn't need peer-reviewed research, or to make intelligent decisions about what they ate or how they were medicated, in order to live and thrive for billions of years.
2) (unstated premise)
3) Therefore humans don't need peer-reviewed research to tell them what food or medicine is good for them, or to follow that advice, in order to live and thrive.
The most obvious problem with your syllogism is your 2) premise, which is something like "Humans don't need anything that bacteria don't need." ... I confess I am wondering whether I do, indeed, have to explain to you that this premise is false. Humans need plenty of things that bacteria don't need, at least if they're going to have a lifespan and a standard of living more typical of humans than of bacteria. Ever seen a bacterium use tools? No? Then why aren't you giving up tool use? Obviously bacteria got along for billions of years without tool use.
Another, slightly subtler problem with your premise is that you talking about bacteria living and thriving for billions of years - and ignoring the ones that didn't. You don't know how many kinds of bacteria went completely extinct because they "tried" to consume nutrients that weren't suited to them. (The idea of attributing understanding or intention to bacteria is, of course, absurd, but not nearly as absurd as your trying to make a comparison between bacteria and humans in the first place.) We only know that there were some survivors and that over billions of years their descendants were numerous -- that does not preclude massive death tolls, which we as humans are under no obligation to calmly accept as a fate.
You really need to work on your grammar. This sentence comes very close to being just plain gobbledygook. What you seem to be trying to say is "If mainstream medicine accepts that very small quantities of an substance can have huge effects (as in the case of an allergen triggering a severe allergy) then why does mainstream medicine reject homeopathy, which is all about very small quantities of substances having huge effects?" The answer is that homeopathy is all about very small quantities of substances having huge effects in ways that contradict all known physics. When we see a person with a severe peanut allergy at the front of a plane starting to gasp and wheeze because someone seated in the middle of the plane started chewing on peanuts, we say "Even though the amount of peanut that wafted through the air from the middle of the plane to the front just from someone's chewing must be very small, obviously it is still large enough to set off this allergy." We don't say "Obviously this allergen is particularly strong because there's only a very small amount of it" because that does not make any sense; no well-replicated scientific studies, in any field, have ever shown that a biological substance has a greater effect when the dose is smaller. It may have a different effect (I'd certainly rather take 1 ibuprofen tablet than 100) but it will not be the same effect, stronger because the dose is smaller.
And which of your previous three topics is this supposed to relate to? Presumably homeopathy: it's a simple explanation; to someone who knows little of science it might seem plausible; it's definitely not true in a biological system or elsewhere... but I suspect that's not what you wanted us to apply your observations to.
Another Mike Adams SCAM!
www.truth publishing.com/product_p/cd-cat21485.htm
Eliminate disease in 92 days with the secret of juice feasting, By Mike Adams. Here is yet another one of Mike Adams latest SCAMS! Now for only $58.00 Mike Adams will teach you how to use a juicer or better yet you can always read the instruction manual that came with the juicer in the first place. But wait there's more!
Mike Adams also claims that he can Eliminate Disease in not 90 or 100 days but in exactly 92 days. Wow, Mike must be a god or at least he thinks is is one! Scam Artists that make claims like this are sick and are only preying on sick people who would give anything to eliminate or cure their disease in 92 days. If Mike Adams doesn't end up in jail I can see a whole lot of law suites against him in the very near future. Mike Adams is a SCAM ARTIST and needs to be shut down! Hey Mike, can you lend me $58.00?