Mike Adams Says You And Your Doctor Make You Ill

[BPSDB] According to Mike Adams, disease is either your fault or your doctor’s. At least, that is the understanding I get from reading this. There are a few grains of truth in his latest pronouncement but it is padded out with the usual Adams factoids.

Such as this:-

Mainstream consumers, you see, have been trained by the medical industry to believe that disease strikes spontaneously, without any real cause. One day you have nothing wrong with you, and then suddenly the next day you’re diagnosed with a breast cancer tumor. Shazam! It happens just like being struck by lightning… (and it’s not your fault, you’re told — there’s nothing you could have done about it…)

He is talking about degenerative diseases here, rather than those that are viral or bacterial in origin but even so, this is nonsense.

For a start, for the last 30 years doctors have been telling their patients that giving up smoking will vastly reduce their chances of getting lung cancer, plus major reduction in the chances of getting other respiritory diseases or heart & circulation problems. American magazines stopped carrying cigarette adverts about 30 years ago and even before that every ad prominently displayed the Surgeon-General’s advice that smoking was bad for your health.

Similarly in Britain, there are major restrictions on tobacco advertising and promotion and in 2007 England & Wales followed the earlier examples of Scotland, Ireland and New York by banning smoking in public places.

Furthermore, in Britain there are frequent television ads warning of the health impacts of drinking. And there is positive advice such as the exhortation to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day.

All this gives the lie to Adams’ claim that we are being trained to believe that degenerative diseases have no real cause. As for criticising doctors for not telling patients it is their own fault they have cancer or diabetes; it does not seem to have occurred to him that doctors might regard such hectoring as being unconstructive.

Sometimes he repackages standard medical advice and pretends its his own invention. Such as:-

How to manufacture diabetes:

• Drink lots of liquid sugars and high-fructose corn syrup.
• Consume a huge number of empty calories (junk food).
• Avoid all exercise. Live a sedentary lifestyle.
• Live indoors. Avoid sunshine and the natural world.
• Maintain nutritional deficiencies in vitamin D, selenium, zinc and plant-based nutrients.

The five-a-day advice referred to above has been on the go for years, encouraging people to eat a balanced diet to prevent nutitional deficiencies. Likewise taking excercise and not eating junk-food are standard health advice you would get from any orthodox doctor. As for avoiding fructose, the only people I have ever heard encouraging its consumption are health-nuts who want to avoid sucrose.

How to make cancer:

• Expose yourself to radiation (mammograms, CT scans, X-rays, etc.).
• Eat cancer-causing foods like bacon, processed meats and foods with chemical preservatives.
• Avoid all anti-cancer nutrients like superfoods, medicinal mushrooms, spirulina, etc.
• Avoid sunlight. Remains deficient in vitamin D.
• Use lots of toxic personal care products made with cancer-causing chemicals.
• Live a high-stress lifestyle.

The link between ionising radiation and cancer was discovered by conventional scientists, not nutritionistas like Adams. Note that the examples he gives are medical sources. While use of these does carry some risk, there are occasions where these techniques will show up a condition that if left untreated will pose far more danger than the medical intervention. Adams doesn’t mention these, giving the impression that doctors like irradiating their patients for no good purpose.

It is far too simplistic to say that bacon etc cause cancer. There is some evidence of an increased chance of developing cancer if you eat a lot of these foods but he gives the impression that it is guaranteed that if you eat bacon you will get cancer.

‘Superfoods’ seem to have been the bollocks du jour ever since Gilliam McKeith claimed that chlorophyll will oxygenate your blood. There is no evidence that these superfoods supply you with any nutrients that you cannot get from cheaper and more readily available fruit and veg.

The final three are standard medical advice. It seems that whenever Adams is right, orthodox medicine has beaten him to it; whenever he is original he is totally wrong.

When I first started reading Natural News, I thought that Adams was barmy but harmless but I am increasingly of the view that he is actually dangerous. There was the mangling of stats to support his notion that vaccines are dangerous which I fisked in my last post. And there is this:-

Ask your doctor

Remember this the next time your doctor or some other health professional gives you advice. After receiving their advice, ask yourself, “Is this a recipe for HEALTH, or for DISEASE?”

If the advice includes a lot of radiation, chemotherapy, pharmaceuticals, surgery or injections of some kind, it’s probably not describing a recipe for health. Be wary of any advice that does not resonate with the simple
principles of commonsense health… as in, don’t irradiate yourself. Don’t poison yourself (chemo). Don’t cut your body (surgery). Don’t use chemicals to control your physiology (pharmaceuticals)…when it comes to long
term habits of health, be aware that pharmaceuticals, mammograms, chemotherapy, vaccines and most surgeries are really just components of the recipe for disease. So if you choose to follow that route, don’t be surprised at the outcome.

Doctors do not prescribe drugs or other chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery just for the hell of it. If yours are thinking along those lines, safe to say you are ill already. Yet Adams simply says that these are not good for your health and the outcome will be bad if you accept them whereas if you eschew them you will be healthier. Some of the people who believe this are going to have much shorter lives as a consequence.

Tags: , ,

4 Responses to “Mike Adams Says You And Your Doctor Make You Ill”

  1. Zeno Says:

    The problem is that there isn’t just one ignorant menace like Adams out there, but many, many of them – all with either no scientific or medical knowledge or just with no self-awareness whatsoever.

  2. Hygieia Says:

    Could it be that Mike Adams is wondering why chemotherapy is preiscribed by medical doctors abundantly even if cytotoxic chemotherapy only contributes for about 2.1 % to 5-year-survival in the US?

    quote
    RESULTS: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA. CONCLUSION: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.unquote
    source

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849

    • jaycueaitch Says:

      How ‘abundantly’ is it prescribed?

    • bridconley Says:

      Doctors who are able to prescribe chemotherapy are specialists called oncologists. Family physicians do not prescribe chemotherapy. To make the statement “prescribed by medical doctors abundantly” is not technically wrong, but it is misleading and prejudicial–using a wide brush serves to obscure clarity and understanding. Oncologists are specialists and practice medicine based on the quality of the care they provide cancer patients. These include their ability to provide comfort, quality of life and survival for their patients. These are their priorities. If they could not provide premium care they would, or should, go out of business.

      While a “cytotoxic chemotherapy only contributes for about 2.1% to 5-year-survival in the US” what does that equal in human lives effected? As far as patients effected the results are clear in the study. In Australia the number was 1,696 lives given at least 5 more years of living due only to chemotherapy. In the U.S. the number was 3,313 lives given 5 more years due only to chemotherapy. This did not include children, but was only for patients in the two countries 20 years or older in 1998.

      All therapies can seem only marginally effective if you look at only percentages. But for anyone looking at medical results, low percentage results are not uncommon. Medicine is about people, after all, and not about a pile of numbers to settle arguments for the living. There seems to be the implication that the results in the article somehow challenge the value of chemotherapy. Ask anyone who has survived cancer and they will tell you one thing: whatever works. You will also find out that while patients yearn for less grueling therapies than chemotherapy, such complaints are not the whole story. Ask the surviving patients whether they would go through it again if chemo were the only way to live 5 more years, and I would be surprised if anyone ever said “no.” I never met such a person and I know dozens of 5 year+ survivors. If the individual was in their seventies or eighties, I could understand the answer of “no.” But for a parent with young children, such an answer would be rare.

      Show the result that chemotherapy caused the death of a cancer patient who would have otherwise survived given other therapies and then you have information that will help someone. Until then I would recommend more care given to your argument and sources.

      I am not a doctor, pharmaceutical employee or stockholder, or anything related to the field. I am just the husband of a survivor. It is understandable that the limitations of the medical industry can seem monumental at times, and facing cancer is very scary, but the field is filled with talented and caring practitioners who save lives everyday. Such devotion to better care within a difficult therapy deserves far more respect than Adams, and those who sympathize with him, seem to be able to manage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 163 other followers

%d bloggers like this: