Natural News: A Truly Deadly Brand of Pseudoscience?

What do you make of Mike Adams and his Natural News site, disinfonauts? Big Think has a very negative take:

If there was an award for the single greatest hub of pseudoscience on the internet, the website Natural News would well and truly take the crown tin foil hat. Expect to find anti-vaccine paranoia which extends not only to your garden variety antivaxxer favorites such as the debunked link to autism but to crackpot claims that vaccines caused the “cancer epidemic” and were even responsible for the “origin” of AIDS. According to Natural NewsMicrosoft is developing “eugenics vaccines that target specific races and nationalities with infertility-inducing pharmaceuticals“. Alongside this you’ll also find full blown AIDS denialism (emphasis mine):

1-Aids-Denialism
HIV does NOT cause AIDSHIV does not cause anything. A staggering statement given the hype and acceptance by the scientific establishment and, through them, the public that the HIV virus is the only cause of AIDS. HIV is a weak virus and does not dismantle the immune system. Nor is AIDS passed on sexually.

It is worth noting that the above blog post is authored by David Icke, the man who believes that the world is controlled by a race of reptiles from outer space who reside in underground tunnels. If you thought things couldn’t get much darker than AIDS denialism, you’d be wrong. This weekNatural News reached dangerous new levels of hysteria, publishing a post indirectly calling for the deaths of journalists, publishers and scientistswho have worked on the topic of genetically modified organisms. In this latest post Mike Adams, the creator of Natural News, calls for the creation of a list of pro-GMO “publishers, journalists and scientists”:

“Just as history needed to record the names and deeds of Nazi war criminals, so too must all those collaborators who are promoting the death and destruction caused by GMOs be named for the historical record. The true extent of their collaboration with an anti-human regime will all become readily apparent once the GMO delusion collapses and mass global starvation becomes an inescapable reality.”

In the same blog post, Adams states (apparently with no relevance to his statements describing scientists, journalists and publishers as guilty of “genocide”) the following “fundamental philosophical truth”…

[continues at Big Think]

majestic

Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

52 Comments on "Natural News: A Truly Deadly Brand of Pseudoscience?"

  1. ‘Elsewhere, [in the musical Book of Mormon] there is a blood-drinking warlord who believes in female circumcision and that raping babies can cure Aids. Later one of the Mormon evangelists persuades the locals the disease can, in fact, be eradicated by indulging in bestiality.’

    ~ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2304277/The-Book-Of-Mormon-review-The-hyped-Gods-earth.html

  2. BuzzCoastin | Jul 28, 2014 at 8:58 pm |

    just in case people don’t fully buy into Pig Hellcare
    they need to trash alternative conjectures about disease
    and concerns about Pig Pharma
    should be dismissed as pseudoscience
    lest anyone dare think outside the narrow box of acceptable pseudoscience

  3. Mr. B a daily mail link doesn’t make your statement any less pointless or make you any less of a shill.
    DISINFO: I get your aggregating stories, but to make the assertion that Mike Adams is essentially pedaling misinformation in one story, when he talks about a multi poled medical conspiracy, Aids, Cancer, and otherwise, and then 3 articles later do a story on how big pharma is testing on Homeless people seems to be a contradiction of the highest magnitude.
    Let me get this straight, we test on Animals, Poor people in India, the Homeless, and I’m supposed to think that the medical establishment is above board!! Are you flipping kidding me?! Look into baking soda + Cancer. Look into the Rockefeller foundation, and the fact that they have have had a full blown cure for cancer for decades. Anerobic + Cancer. Acidity + Cancer.
    Really what i’m saying is LOOK INTO ANYTHING at all!!!
    Most people are reverse engineering there views from not wanting to face the ego annihilation of just how much they have been cowed, the shear magnitude of how far off base they are.

    • Anarchy Pony | Jul 28, 2014 at 10:03 pm |

      Look into how cranks and nutbars take advantage of the paranoid and uncritically anti-establishment to shill lies and pseudo-scientific garbage.

    • Hmm.. I think it’s more about showing both sides of the coin. On the one hand, Big Pharma has done much to be critical about, but running to the far opposite extreme (in this case NaturalNews), well that can’t be the answer either.

    • Actually, the outrage came over the still another Nazi comparison. I read NN with a grain of salt and I always check citations no matter what site I’m on. If the only citations are past articles of the same author, I don’t bother returning.

    • While I don’t completely agree with everything you’ve written here, I think there’s a lot of truth to your last paragraph.

    • No, but it does inform as to the source.
      Who exactly am I shilling for?
      And why the pompous open letter?

    • You are making my points exactly ?

      We all live in massive illusions and most are afraid to admit it to themselves ? therefore they are stuck in KA KA !

      It is all quite obvious once you open your eyes and admit you too were fooled ? I did about 30 years ago ? That is when I started healing myself ! Anybody can do the same .

  4. a fucking bullshit webbot almost un-intelligable comment about the Book of Mormon gets thrown right up but some logic about the scale of the real disinformation in the world gets censored….awesome.

    • My guess is, your post needed more time to be approved because your Disqus account is new. Mr. B posts a lot on Disinfo, so it doesn’t trigger our spam block. Let us know if it doesn’t go through again (but I think it did, based on your other comment).

    • You seem a little overwrought.
      Relax with a pizza and a beer.

  5. That’s not a parody website?

  6. I was about to take a shitty tone with this post, but then I took a closer look and realized that “Big Think” is the one casting aspersions. (The notion that Disinfo could somehow be judgmental about another website hosting conspiracy theories or fringe beliefs is, upon a moment’s reflection, obviously absurd.)

    Majestic is merely asking our opinion of the “Natural News” site. Though the way he does so is of questionable impartiality.

    I occasionally read “Natural News” and sometimes Mike Adams has something interesting and unconventional to say.

    As far as I know, Natural News never did a story on how safe and effective Vioxx is.

  7. Anarchy Pony | Jul 28, 2014 at 10:05 pm |

    The medical establishment; infallible? No. Always ethical? Certainly not. Pseudo science bullshit pedaled by cranks like Mike Adams? Still pseudo scientific bullshit.

    • Exactly. But some of the crap Adams spreads through his site is incredibly dangerous. So, in my opinion, it goes beyond being pseudo-scientific to becoming something much more insidious.

      • Jin The Ninja | Jul 31, 2014 at 3:20 pm |

        yes. it’s wholly unfortunate that natural news actually posts good information at times. but there are so many other sites out there, that post much more credible/accurate information. it’s always better if people speak to a holistic health practitioner, than try to google-remedy.

        totally tangential, but something i often see, which i personally find alarming, is certain herbalists (online) advocating mono-herbal remedies in large doses. a ‘good’ herbalist should know that herbs work best in concert with other herbs, that you can mitigate the toxic effects of one plant with another, that if a plant can produce both a cure and an undesirable effect, you should temper the formula with another plant that can correct it. these same herbalists have a tendency to shy away from indigenous herbs (like blue flag root which is impossible to find in capsule form- and is a defacto adaptogen- useful for treating a very wide range of ailments)- or embracing only one effect of an herb or 1 constituent chemical (like blue flag, which is great as a liver/skin/men’s tonic, but only popularised as an emetic, or goldenseal which should only be used for serious infections but known as a ‘cold’ remedy) but then readily experimenting with the ‘next big rainforest panacea.’

        but i get it, people are often desperate for ‘cures’ that big pharma and allopathic medicine can’t provide, so they experiment and look for something that promises relief. chronic illness can be effectively treated with plant medicine, but it generally requires long-term use. and if someone doesn’t know what they’re doing, that can be dangerous. very dangerous. like w/ young living essential oils- which basically advocate for some really detrimental practices in order to sell product.

        • Oginikwe | Aug 1, 2014 at 1:23 pm |

          Sorry, Jin, but lots of simples work very well. It really depends upon what you are treating: not all dis-eases are equal. Simple problems, like localized infections respond very well to one plant while cancer treatments require many. While your point about blue flag is well taken, lemons and burdock root is just as good for cleansing your liver so why take something that runs the risk of making you nauseated when either of those things are also consider tasty foods? And, yes, people underestimate the potency of true essential oils. Peppermint oil can burn sensitive individuals and yet, who thinks of peppermint as capable of doing harm? And that is another point: one thing that works really well for me may not work for you.

          I primarily make tinctures now. Tisanes are fine for some things but people can seldom drink enough for it to have an effect. Then, when you get into things like chaga, some good principle can only be gotten through tinctures while other constituents are water-soluble, so do both.

          And, yet, you are correct on time frames: people expect immediate effects with some things and if it took you years to get this whatever, it will take awhile for things to improve. Mostly, though, big pharma and big medicine ignore good, clean food and water and our bodies’ ability to heal ourselves. Once we started to withdraw from mass produced food, it took three years to show an impact.

    • But if one side is bad then the other side must be good! That’s just logic.

      • Number1Framer | Jul 29, 2014 at 1:18 am |

        You summed up this thread perfectly. See below for examples.

      • misinformation | Jul 29, 2014 at 2:40 am |

        Yea, if you’re not for Mike Adams, you must be pro big Pharma. There’s no nuance and I will define your argument for you with my response…

  8. While I don’t agree with many of the opinions expressed by Mike Adams and the other contributors on his site, to outright dismiss everything he says is a bit much. To me this ‘Big Think’ article has all the hallmarks of one written by an author with a nice fat Monsanto check currently clearing his bank account.

  9. The lowest form of popular culture–lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people’s lives–has overrun real journalism. Today, ordinary Americans are being stuffed with garbage.
    -Carl Bernstein

  10. The Design Flaw | Jul 29, 2014 at 11:16 am |

    This Big Think article is very one-sided, although it is at least half-right about that one side.

  11. TheBingeThinker | Jul 29, 2014 at 5:23 pm |

    I agree with 90% of what Natural News publishes. I have a scientific background and work history in microbiology, molecular biology R&D and food science. I also have many personal life experiences that caused me to do my own research, which I had the technical knowledge to take right from the peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals. I also did my own research into the “road less traveled” published papers, which often cannot get published in mainstream journals, due to corporate politics, lack of funding, and a viewpoint or results that the conformists don’t like.

    I have seen my own 18 month old daughter get extremely sick after the MMR vaccine, run a high fever that she came out of three days later with new autistic behaviors that weren’t there before (hand flapping, spinning, echolalia). I have myself become sick from eating GMOs, had metal and toxin testing that tested positive for pesticides (admistered BY AN MD). For the record, I am not an Anti-Vaxer; but the ruthless way they do it now harms more children than it has to.

    I know how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. Many of my conclusions that concur with Natural News, I developed on my own, before I encountered his site, due to my own research, checking Scientific Journals, the old fashioned way, by digging in the stacks and finding the journal and then finding their references.

    I have also seen personally in food science, chemicals being added to food with the intention to make them addictive, admitted by the scientists I worked with, the loose definition of GRAS, the admission that these chemicals were mutagens or cancerous or endocrine disruptors. When I questioned this, I was told it was dosage dependent (which has now been proven to not be true and this discovery is SUPPRESSED by the Food Giants. The truth is they are synergistic and the hazardous components are amplified when ingested in combination). When I further questioned this, the lab director told me to “Shhhhhh.” He said he made $80,000 a year, and if I learned to shush up, I’d be able to make that too. (Food Science is big business).

    Mike Adams at times, can write opinion that is shocking to many. Occasionally I disagree with some of the things published, but I have checked references and also changed my mind. He is far more right, than he is ever wrong. My 10% of disagreement is not important – yes, Mike Adams is highly passionate, and may go over the top a bit sometimes. He also backs up his findings with independent lab research. You will get far better advice from sites like Natural News, Rodale, Mercola and Natural Society than you ever will from your doctor. Allopathy almost killed me, on more than one occasion. Natural News is very unlikely to kill me.

    Pseudoscience is Giorgio on Ancient Aliens — NOT Mike Adams.

    • Thanks for the articulate defense of NN. That’s why I posted the Big Think piece here – to hear intelligent arguments on either side.

    • I agree on all points and especially Giorgio as any kind of science. Also most of what we call or accept as science is largely pseudo science and only gets supported because it is in its own self feeding loop of gov funding . that is what keeps it alive and what keeps it quite stale and static ? I too formulated all my own ideas which have served me well prior to finding NN. And much of my anti medical establishment paradigm is based on experience of being misdiagnosed numerous times and almost killed with Pharma? As well as being sprayed with agent orange and learning how to heal myself of many maladies in te last 30 years, some life threatening. So I am NOT basing anything on what Mike says , in fact I have disagreed on many points , but mostly on “how to” ideas and gathering more background info to make good personal decisions. In all honesty I think Mike still has a lot of life to live to find out many more relevant issues of life , but I also think he has good intent and have openly said so many times and will again likely. IMO he is trying to do a good thing and sometimes the marketing thing is a bit annoying to me personally . I do mine very differently. Most sites are all about marketing some kind of crap that is largely worthless and meaningless. Look at Becks Blaze ? what a bad joke it has become, but most are the same like WND and others that sell all manner of basic junk? Stock market scams to cooking utensiles HA HA HA ! And almost NO actual useful information that you can use in your own life today or even any good ideas or info much ! In some ways I know I am ahead of Mike but only because I have many more experiences that he has not and likely never will ? That does not disqualify him for his intent and that is what I look at in people. What they do, not what they say ? I say Good on Ya Mike and please pay attention to your elders ! I guarantee you will learn more than you can imagine. You are on the right track and my offer is still open.

      • TheBingeThinker | Jul 30, 2014 at 4:20 pm |

        Thank You! You are an asset, both on Natural News and the other sites where you comment. People are being misdiagnosed and just given drugs. One thing allopathic medicine doesn’t understand is that when they are dealing with someone who has been exposed to these toxins, such as you were with agent orange, and with me it was pesticides and heavy metals, is that those individuals are now highly sensitized. Pharmacological treatments, which can make other people sick much more slowly, but mask symptoms for the sake of patient comfort, can kill us. Doctors don’t test patients for toxins, such as the glyphosate pesticide found in GMO foods – which are becoming more and more prevalent. The rise in Autoimmune disease is only one indicator of this. Once you have a patient that you can’t give a pharmaceutical to, then they don’t know what to do with you because they have no knowledge of herbal treatments.

        Mike Adams is needed to get these ideas out there. There are enough chronically sick people who can’t get answers the traditional way.

        And yes, listen to your elders. They’ve been around long enough to recognize hazardous patterns in government, established medicine, crooked politics, that they can smell a bad situation brewing. They have a lot of useful old-school knowledge as well. I miss my grandmother and great-grandparents, but I had them all involved in my life for a very long time, and I remember well the skills they taught me. I was very lucky.

  12. Adam's Shadow | Jul 29, 2014 at 6:40 pm |

    “I stay away from websites where the hosts are constantly trying to sell me something.”

    It’s sad that most people and most of life in America is that way.

    • That’s the great thing about Firefox: I never see any ads unless I have to go on Internet Explorer.

      • That is exactly why I built my site with no ads and no popups, just good useful information and a very pleasant atmosphere with many original photos . Completely different than any other , quite opposite actually ! .

  13. Evan Camomile | Jul 29, 2014 at 7:46 pm |

    Not much worse than the clickbait ads before the comments section here…

  14. I go on this site occasionally to try and post actual scientific information and
    the response doing this elicits from both other posters and the moderators is
    remarkable. The people there really have no tolerance for anyone who may
    disagree with them, regardless of how respectful that person may be. To me,
    spreading that mentality is what makes naturalnews so dangerous. The
    pseudoscience just makes it that much worse.

    The MO of the naturalnews writers seems to be the following:

    1. Pick a research article that could possibly be connected to any subject that
    fits the agenda of the site in the slightest way. This could be anything from
    vaccines, GMOs, and HIV, to natural compounds that may cure or prevent
    disease.The connection does not need to be obvious. Sometimes it does not even
    exist, but the site bases their articles around peer-reviewed publications to
    seem like they are discussing relevant science and increase the
    “credibility” of their content.

    2. Next, grossly misinterpret or misrepresent the actual data and conclusions
    presented in said study. This is usually done so that it paints modern medicine
    in a negative light or massively exaggerates the effectiveness of a
    “natural” cure. For example, a study showing that a compound isolated
    from “vegetable X” shows activity against cultured cancer cells in a
    dish would be written to conclude something like “eating vegetable x cures
    cancer naturally”. This is usually followed by a contrasting, inflammatory
    statement against modern medicine such as “curing cancer is a simple as
    eating vegetable X but big pharma does not want you to know so they can keep
    making profits from their ineffective drugs.” These statements are usually
    not backed up by any research or any discussion of how natural and western medicine could work together.

    3.Insert a plug for a “natural extract” that can be purchased from
    the naturalnews store.In the case presented above, this would be a statement
    such as “purchasing organic vegetable x extract from the naturalnews store
    may be a natural way to prevent cancer”. This is done because naturalnews
    truly cares and wants to help all of its readers and most readers never even
    entertain the possibility that the article was written to fit an agenda or
    make a profit.

    4. Censor and delete comments from users who disagree with said article or who
    post any sort of critical scientific analysis. This makes it seem like the
    opinion of the naturalnews writer is a true consensus and further fuels the
    groupthink mentality that the site is based on.

    Naturalnews is a textbook example of confirmation bias at work. People there are convinced they are privy to suppressed information and know the “truth” about
    all issues pertaining to health and science. They only want to hear viewpoints
    that confirm what they think. Anyone who says otherwise is an outsider with a
    hidden agenda trying to deceive them. As a scientist, I find it to be a very
    disturbing place…

    • The Lurking Duck | Jul 29, 2014 at 10:34 pm |

      I’ve disagreed, and not been deleted. There are concerns about metal contamination in supplements and extracts, which Natural News independently tests. Yes, they insert plugs for their own products, but if you look at the Labs section you will see that they also post other brands of products that tested clean. There are many other sites that post similar claims as Natural News and I have found many examples of research to back up several of the claims made on all of these sites. Do you think that Big Pharma, The Food Giants and Monsanto are not looking to make a profit? It’s the Pharmaceutical Industry NOT the Pharmaceutical Philanthropy!

      I do sympathize with you, if indeed your stance is that you purely disagree, from a scientific standpoint. I was once in your shoes, and it was very difficult for me to initially believe that profits, and corporate science ruled the food and pharma industry. But my own independent research, long before I ran into Natural News, as well as my own life experiences, both inside the professional circle of science, and outside as a mother witnessing the process of a child becoming autistic.

      In addition, I have read your Disqus comment and I think it’s very odd that Natural News is the only site you have ever posted to, aside from this one here, and it’s only to disagree. (You could be attacking Natural Society and Mother Jones and other sites that post similar content). This is why people on Natural News think you are a paid shill. Your Disqus history does not support the picture you try to paint of a person just reading and commenting, who just disagrees. You have sought out to discredit Natural News as your sole purpose for being on Disqus.

      Other scientists of multiple peer-reviewed papers have warned about GMOs. Doctors themselves have questioned vaccines, many studies have been done on herbal alternatives. Dentists filter the fluoride out of the water their family drinks.

      I could pound you with links (which I do have in a spreadsheet) but I can tell from your prior comments that you have made up your mind.

      So, who pays you for your comments?

      • Before I say anything else, I will say that I see your point
        about my disqus account seeming suspicious. I had never really thought of itthat way. That said, I still think the general mentally of people on NN(moderators included) is to attack, dismiss, or censor people who present opposing ideas while not addressing any of the actual information they present.If I am saying something sensible and backed up by references or experience, it
        should not matter what my diqus account looks like.

        Before I am even given a chance to explain myself further,
        it seems you have already concluded something about me, as evident by your last line. This is the sort of thinking that goes on there all the time. So, let me give you some perspective.

        In a way, my diqus account was meant specifically for NN. I
        had an old account (Pyaemia1, which was banned by NN) that I used infrequently comment on a few sites. However, most of my commenting began on NN after I heard of them from a friend who posted an article on facebook. I myself am a
        university researcher in cell and molecular biology and was appalled by the inaccuracies presented in that particular article. I am passionate about what I do, and so I thought I would try to engage that community and provide my own points of view
        and information. The truth is, I did not really know about these other similar sites you just named, or I would have been posting there as well. So, yes, most of my comments are at NN. However, I think it is important to note that if you do go back and look at my discussions; my posts are not in any way insulting or
        offensive, nor do they attack anyone. Yet, I had an account be completely banned and my posts under this account are frequently deleted. Why is this, if you can see I am mostly just giving my opinion using science?

        As I said, I am passionate about my field and I feel like
        something fishy is going on at NN, so I feel inclined to try my best and do something about it. I think that the site attempts to distort and misrepresent science to the public-most likely to sell products through misinformation. If I reach just one person, that is good enough for me. Science should not have an agenda. Natural news clearly does. You say that Mike does his own research on his
        products and tests them. Sure, he has an ICP-MS machine that he runs some basic tests with. Then he says “oh the results were great for our products” and they get put on the shelf with only basic tests that do not back up his claims. One such example is this “cesium blocker” product he just came out with. How is this any different from Monsanto, or big pharma companies that NN so vehemently
        opposes?

        To be clear, I work at a university, despite the fact that I could make much more in another sector, because I don’t believe that science should be for profit or agenda based. Just because I don’t agree with NN does not mean I support Monsanto or
        big pharma companies. I am just a scientist who is passionate about what I do, and I feel like misinformation should be combated.

        As for your last few comments, I have not “made up my mind”
        about anything in an absolute sense. If I see something that is convincing, my mind is always open. I read a good dozen
        research articles a day while I am working, and many of them have
        nothing to do with my own research directly- just stuff that interests me or particularly pertinent studies. So, I have read my share of the literature, and I just don’t ever see much good science to support most of the stuff NN wants people to believe. Sure, every once in a
        while they post something that makes sense and is not sensationalized, but the site is primarily based on sensationalized, inaccurate, or misrepresented science. If you really want to get into the details of that, well that would be for another discussion.

        • TheBingeThinker | Jul 30, 2014 at 3:58 pm |

          NN is the most annoyingly trolled and shilled site that I have seen on Disqus. I don’t blame them for cleaning house – it’s distracting. I’ve posted links to peer-reviewed research, and graphs, and other evidence to many comments and they are ignored. Many of the people on there, will say they work for Monsanto right in their comments if you look through their profile. I myself check Disqus to profile who I am dealing with, because I’ve gotten sucked into discussions thinking that someone who was just only getting one side wanted honest information, only to find out they work for Monsanto later.

          If you want links for another discussion, I will pull up some good ones, and find a place to post them for you to review. They won’t be NN articles. If you are sincere about wanting to have real evidence that there is cause for concern about the issues posted on NN, I will honor that. (I was at one time far less anti-GMO. I was hard-headed and I refused to believe that my precious science could be corrupted by corporate greed. I needed personal experiences to open my eyes, and motivate me to do my own research into these issues). I am not afraid to exchange information with reasonable, open-minded, people who just simply disagree. Here’s one for starters – peer-reviewed, Journal of Interdisciplinary Toxicology: http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/~/media/2C6428C5A5254BAFB484C6E43E4ADCF9.ashx

          The idea that people read NN and that’s where they get all their ideas from because they don’t know how to think logically or scientifically is false. As I said, I had come to these same conclusions via scientific pathways, on my own, long before Natural News. As for those who don’t have the high level of technical literacy needed to read Journals filled with trade jargon, they are not being mislead by listening to Mike Adams or the path that NN takes them.

          [And I need to correct an mistake. I accidentally posted under the Lurking Duck. My friend was looking at his Disqus and wasn’t logged out on another tab. So I clicked “Post as The Binge Thinker” and it posted as him… sorry. A reminder to always hit refresh when sharing a computer. I guess that’s why I couldn’t edit my incomplete sentence. LOL]

          • I appreciate the articulate response and openness for discussion despite you disagreeing with me. To me that is really what science is all about. I am not a corporate scientist who is about profit or ego, I genuinely enjoy scientific inquiry and that is why I have chosen to do research. A big part of science is questioning ideas and critically discussing them. Sometimes that involves challenging paradigms or the scientific consensus and sometimes it involves having your own ideas disproved. I am all for that.

            Most people on NN don’t have that sort of mentality. I say this speaking from experience in trying to start dialogues about the science behind various articles posted there.

            As for the actual science…my biggest cause for concern is not WHAT natural news presents, but HOW they do so. Take the article you just posted as an example. I have no problem accepting those data or conclusions. I also don’t think we should be eating glyphosphate if we can avoid it and I get where the connection to GMOs comes into play because it is sprayed onto roundup ready crops at higher levels. So, in that sense, roundup ready GM crops may present a health issue.

            However, in such a case, it is not the fact that the crop is GM that is the problem, but rather how the technology is being applied. The real underlying health issue is not the transgene, but the pesticides that are being applied afterwards. NN does not often make this distinction and tends to lump all GMOs into the same category and demonize them all because they are GM, instead of looking at the underlying issue. For example, the data from the article you posted have no merit on the safety of other GM crops that are not roundup ready.

            What I have yet to see, is a properly conducted study showing that a specific genetic modification used in a crop presents a health hazard. There are a few poorly conducted ones (i.e. Seralini’s work), but in my opinion no real conclusions can be drawn from that.

            That is where I feel that NN is misleading. They present information that may some legitimate implications, but then massively overstate them or simplify them to fit into their bias mentality about anything having to do with western medicine or biotechnology. The scientific reality is never as simple as NN would lead their readers to believe.

          • TheBingeThinker | Jul 31, 2014 at 1:38 pm |

            Well, in many ways. We have more in common than you may realize. I also enjoy scientific inquiry. And I admire that you choose to keep it pure, by sticking with research and academia. Science should never be used for profit; it should only be used to benefit mankind. I hope you can recognize, and appreciate that in doing so, you were also spared what I witnessed in my early involvement in corporate science.

            In the mid 1990s I worked in R&D for a medical lab, designing PCR protocols to minimize the amount of tissue biopsy needed for cancer diagnosis. That was not a horrible experience, but there was arrogance, and tweaking of reported results by other scientists. When I worked in food science it was appalling. I opened my mouth and they had to admit that they were aware of what they were doing, and they just rationalized it away! I can honestly say, I am not welcome back there, and I’m not ashamed of that. They should not call themselves scientists. It was unethical and disturbing.

            I should have stayed in academia. My best work in transposon mutagenisis, using P-32 radiolabeling, was through a fellowship at the local University. They were honest there, and responsible (aside from the mouth pipetting) but also they had to be at the whim of NIH funding. However, my own health deteriorating, and my daughters autism cut my career short. I don’t regret that. It sent me on a path that needed to be taken (I feel horrible for her; I think her life was wasted unnecessarily). Regarding the vaccines, and Pharma, Corrupt companies like Monsanto and medical irresponsibility — this is what it takes: to have an MD, a scientist, a politician or someone famous (yes, I’m referring to that so-called-“annoying” Jenny McCarthy) who’s own child gets sick with MCS or autism, or who gets ill themselves in order to effect societal change.

            I do understand your anti-pseudoscience vigilance. I HATE Ancient Aliens! They have no business being on the History channel, of all things. It is for sensationalism, entertainment, and it misleads a public that has not educationally been given decent science training or that has critical thinking skills. When my fiance puts it on, I can only hear so much… then I get beat red in the face, when I hear Giorgio top it all off with “and that is undeniable, definitive proof that aliens were here!” Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

            BUT… Mike Adams does not claim to be a scientist. He has an alternative newsletter. His background is IT (I believe). He is an activist and makes no claims otherwise. He did what I would do, if I had a strong hunch that our food was contaminated, figure out how to test it. ( I actually do. I grow out my probiotics to see which brands are dead and a waste of money – I just don’t publish my data). He took a class to learn how to use the equipment, set up a lab, and set out to prove his suspicions. This does not mean his data is falsified. Running the lab, as I’m sure you know, is not cheap – so I think his heart and motives are in the right place, and not based on greed and profit.

            As for bias. I’m already biased. I have life experiences, as well as my own research reading the scientific Journals back when I was desperate to figure out what was going on, that convinced me long ago. So where you would get frustrated, expecting post-grad science, I feel vindicated when Mike Adams writes an article that mirrors “my thoughts exactly.” (Some of his other writers can be a bit weak, but the comments make up for that).

            I am also not on there as a professional. I am on there to add information to help people when I can, to support people, who’ve been dismissed by the system undeservingly, to learn from people who have practical knowledge that I can’t get from mainstream medicine. There have been doctors on there who will admit their colleagues know nothing about these issues, but are on board because they, too, smell a rat somewhere. Above all, I trust my self to do my own investigation, and not just blindly take one person’s word for it.

            I have seen some of what you describe. For example, a pharmacist commented that his profession had become somewhat corrupt (I forgot his wording) and he basically got attacked for his comment. I remember thinking “Hey, wait he’s agreeing with you. Insiders like this are valuable, and you can’t expect him to throw away his career because he didn’t know when he got into it.” (That could’ve been me) I get frustrated when I see nasty comments about how science itself is evil, but I scroll on and find the smart people. There is more to reality than just science. There is witnessing.

            If you consider the context, most of these people on NN are, like me, very, very angry. Their lives and children’s lives have been destroyed by corruption, bad medicine, toxic food and police-state-style Child Protective Services telling them that to not conform has legal consequences. And I have seen and experienced all of these things – Did you know that feeding your autistic child a gluten-casein free diet, even with a doctor’s testing and recommendation is “Nutritional neglect, not due to poverty” because it does not abide by the Food Pyramid? (Put simply, small towns are not the fertile crescent of educated, independent thought).

            Also, in addition to the general public NOT having the technical literacy to read the actual scientific research, you may not realize that they don’t have access. You do, because your association with acadamia gives you this. (I personally need to contact my Alma Mater and re-set my alumna account).

            So, I apologize for thinking you were a shill or troll. (They can be very mean, especially when dealing with comments from parents of autistic children). I’ve actually been hoping to find a genuinely interested researcher. You have tremendous power as an educator to influence any students under you. Assuming that you are still open, and Disinformation isn’t thoroughly fed up with us chasing each other around the tree here (Who knows, maybe they find this useful), I’ll be getting back to you with the best links I can scrounge from my spreadsheet.

            I’m going to leave you with one that will keep you very busy for awhile, as the references are extensive (and it also addresses the GMO issue from a purely genetic modification standpoint, along with multiple others): http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3.pdf

            If that doesn’t work you can also access it here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-myths-and-truths/5391793

            For the record, I am not against well thought out genetic modification in theory (I’ve done some of it myself, and I’m proud of my work), it’s the carelessness, general crookedness and the motives of Monsanto. (Think Agent Orange, DDT…. that was all their work. And we trust these people to feed and save the world?)

            … And this one is valuable for anyone who wants the real scoop on their doctors motives. I think everyone should check their doctor and make sure that he’s not on this list, for their own protection: http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

            That’s just the tip of the iceburg…..

            I’ll be following you on Disqus. I promise I’ll be nice 🙂

    • “Naturalnews is a textbook example of confirmation bias at work.” The same can be said of established medical practice and what is accepted as many sciences like psychiatry? Dr Fred Baughman calls them criminals for what they are doing to vets with psychotropic drugs ? I agree . I have seen enough from first hand experience to know who is more valid . I do not need your so-called science to know the difference between chicken salad and chicken shit ? I have a post graduate degree in common sense and one in courage and that serves me very well. I never go to doctors or take any of the so-called medicines and I am a poster boy of health far beyond most peoples expectations. That is all the proof I need , what I can see and feel everyday not some supposed science BS that is really all about MO money and little else ? Of course you are stuck in that paradigm, so I understand that as well. If I can help you one day I will. But you gotta ask ? So what is real intelligence, knowledge and understanding ?

      We all live in many illusions to control people and nothing more ! Sorry to say.

    • Seriously….another shill…..

  15. Ugh. Too early in the morning for dealing with shills. Found myself on this site and i am thoroughly disgusted. You know the fucking truth yet you damn it with every breath you take. People like me…we know better because we live the truth you deny.

  16. Mike Adams, the Alex Jones of supplement marketers and paranoid conspiracy theories? Are you tellin me he might say something untrue and risk other people’s lives to gain shock value and attention?? Say it ain’t so, Joe!! Opposition to Big pharma means that HE LITERALLY CAN’T be wrong…about anything! Ever!!

    My sarcasm may be late, but if I have to be serious…I hope he gets 9 kinds of cancer and we get to watch what he does about it…or better still…just watch him expire and get solid info on where the grave is so we can plan the dance party afterwards.

Comments are closed.