Category Archives: Conspiracy Theory

Tolerance Is Terrible: NaturalNews Takes on Twenty Things to Tolerate Less and It’s a Doozy

Tolerance: do we have too much of it?

That’s the question NaturalNews asks in their article “Rethink Tolerance: 20 Ways We Put Up With Disrespect, Abuse, and Nonsense”. Their answer: yes, of course we tolerate too much stuff, and you know what? It’s our fault.

How so? Let’s take a look.

Tolerating things you don’t like was a necessary skill when you were young. Think about it. Babies and young children, in loving families, still MUST tolerate all kinds of “mistreatment” that they do not understand or appreciate. (Have you ever met a two-year-old?)

Kids growing up in dysfunctional families learn to tolerate not only the perceived injustices, but actual abuse and neglect.

The problem is, tolerance for perceived and actual mistreatment becomes so familiar that we end up (subconsciously) accepting it for the long haul. We don’t stop to realize that, as adults, there are OPTIONS.

We tolerate all kinds of abuse from other people, families, communities and governments. Nothing you can do about it. Just live with it (sigh). These are the sentiments that rule the day and create suffering for hapless sheeple all around the world.

You know you’re screwed when the writer of the article you’re reading uses the word “sheeple” without irony.

Also, seriously? The reason people stay in abusive households is because obviously they’re too stupid to get out? Really?

Gee, thanks. Remind me never to call you to talk about abuse, ever.

Now for the list of 20 things:

1. A poisoned food supply
Food and water are intentionally poisoned with toxic chemicals such as pesticides, fluoride, and genetically modified organisms.

Obviously people eat their vegetables without washing them first, because we like to have dirt on our food.

(Seriously guys? It’s not that hard to wash fruits and veggies. Also, one molecule of a pesticide won’t kill you, and depending on the pesticide used, it probably won’t even affect you—see Bt toxin, which has been used in organic farming for over five decades.)

The amount of fluoride in water is regulated by the EPA and it’s safe. There are public health benefits from the fluoride (namely you have healthier teeth), and it’s the most cost effective public health program.

In addition, fluoride toothpaste has more fluoride in it (1,000-1,500 ppm in a tube; by comparison there’s 0.7 ppm of fluoride in drinking water), and an adult would need to eat 4 tubes of it in order to get fluoride poisoning. And you’d be vomiting from the other additives first.

Soooooooooo, no, you’re not likely to get fluoride poisoning from the water. If anything, should you attempt to do this to “prove” that fluoride is a toxin, you’d get dilutional hyponatremia before you get fluoride poisoning.

[This is where I put in the DO NOT ACTUALLY DO THIS sign. Seriously, don’t drink yourself to death just to prove a point.]

Finally, do I really need to pull out the list of over 600 studies verifying that GMOs are safe? Seriously. And at least 1/6th of the list are independent studies (or 126 independent studies; the list is outdated but the studies are real).

We’re off to a really bad start.

2. Mass corruption in government
Criminals and thugs are regularly elected and re-elected to positions of power around the world.

No guesses as to who, right?

(Hint: it starts with “Big” and ends with “Pharma”. Or “Science”. Or “Agriculture”. Or anything else really. But I think mostly Big Pharma.)

3. Mass corruption in the corporate world
Thieves and thugs in business regularly collude with cohorts in government while people keep buying their products.

Oh yes. I hear there’s this “doctor” in Texas who has not been (seriously) taken to task by the Texas Medical Board or the FDA for decades, even though his “cancer cure” has killed patients (including at least one child) and even though he’s utterly and totally incompetent. And unethical. Don’t forget about the unethical. You’d think that there’s some sort of political pull that this guy’s got, since he had been able to charge patients thousands of dollars to participate in his sham clinical trials until the FDA FINALLY put a hold on them sometime in 2012.

Oh wait. You meant Big Pharma, not Big Quacks. Apologies.

4. Lying and deception in the mainstream media
We sit at our TVs and listen to puppet heads neglect to mention the most relevant facts about current events.

Yeah. That’s why we go to NaturalNews to learn DA TRUTH, such as how psychiatry was to blame for Sandy Hook. Or at least, that is if it actually happened at all.

5. Abuse of holistic businesses and practices
If you are a holistic business, you need to be mildly paranoid about the benefits of your product or service even though there are no harmful side effects.

So laetrile is harmless? And hydrogen peroxide won’t bleach your skin? And there’s no evidence that DMSO can cause glaucoma? And antineoplastons have not been linked to extremely elevated sodium levels, anemia, fatigue, headaches, and the like?

You get my meaning here, right?

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies come right out and claim that their product endangers your health and may very well kill you.

Well yeah. No product is without risk. They’re also being honest about it, which is much more than the SCAM proponents will say.

Also, the reason that they’re even approved by the FDA is because 1. the risks are offset by the benefits and 2. they work. Both of these things are lacking in the SCAM department.

6. Vaccination abuse
Your right to spare your baby a toxin-laden vaccination is slipping away. In fact, you may be called a murderer if you refuse a vaccination.

Herd immunity is obviously DA WORST THING IN THE WORLD!

Also, to put that statement into context (listing some of the more comment complaints about ZOMGTOXINS in vaccines):

  1. Your body actually produces more formaldehyde in a day compared to what you would get in a vaccine. The wood in your house has more formaldehyde than a vaccine.
  2. Since we don’t use thimerosal in the vast majority of vaccines anymore, you get more mercury if you break a CFC bulb, or if you eat fish.
  3. You get exposed to more aluminum in your food than you do in a vaccine.
  4. There are no “aborted fetuses” in vaccines. Some vaccines are grown in cells derived from aborted fetuses, but these cells have been growing in Petri dishes for decades. At this point they’re so removed from their original source that they’re not even fetus cells anymore. It’d be sort of like saying that HeLa cells are made of cervices. That and the cells are all removed during processing, so this is essentially mostly moot.

If there are any others that I missed, leave a comment and I’ll research it.

7. Internet freedom under attack
There are those who would regulate your freedom of speech by monitoring what you post online and restricting information that they disagree with.

And who are these people, exactly?

8. Your email – no longer private
Your email account is routinely hacked and scrutinized by the government, a clear invasion of privacy.

And so it is! Governments shouldn’t hack email accounts!

But seriously, you have to REALLY egotistical to think that the NSA actually gives a rat’s ass about the amount of chain letters your grandmother forwards you every week.

Plus, can you even imagine HOW many email accounts there are, and how long it would take to hack every single one? And this is not including the fact that there’s a decent amount of people who have MORE than one email address (work/school/personal addresses anyone?), which means MORE accounts and MORE hacking.

In other words: the likelihood that the NSA hacked your account? Nil.

9. Forced psychiatric drugging
Psychiatrists and legislators would like to force psychiatric drugging and imprison people who seek treatment for problems. If you don’t want meds or even electric shock treatment, then you may be forced into it or physically confined.

Yeah, that might be an issue if you were declared to be legally insane by a court of law.

“Why no, I’ve never been declared insane by a court of law.”

Then why are you worrying about it?

10. Truth tellers and legitimate conspiracy theorists and jailed in prisons and hospitals [sic.]
When someone learns the truth and has the nerve to come out with it, they are destroyed.

Which is why InfoWars and NaturalNews doesn’t exist anymore, right?

11. Tolerance for obesity
Someone depressingly overweight consumes a diet high in sugar, fat, and toxins. […]

Because obviously people who are overweight are slobs who can’t stop eating bacon and if they just stopped eating processed foods, it’ll all be resolved oh so easily. *rolls eyes*

[…] These folks have a high tolerance for body discomfort, even though they hate it. The tolerance is so high that it is less painful to endure their as it is than to exchange their dietary and lifestyle habits for healthier ones.

Ewww, thin elitism.

Seriously. There’s a large amount of people who are eating healthy foods and who exercise regularly, and yet they’re STILL overweight. Losing weight is not as easy as “oh, just eat healthier!”, like it’s depicted on TV. It takes a LOT of work—and in many cases, they’re actually pretty damn healthy.

So can we stop with the body shaming now?

12. Tolerance for personal abuse
A tortured woman stays with the man who mistreats her.

So much women put up with SO MUCH from abusive men. These women have a super high tolerance for rejection, betrayal, and mistreatment. Their tolerance is so high that they find it easier to put up with abuse than to face life on their own.


No. No no no no no no no no no. And no again. No.

No. People who are being abused by their significant others don’t stay there because they LIKE being abused. They stay there because they fear that if they leave, their significant other might find them and hurt them. Their abuser manipulates their emotions to the point where they’re left fearing for their lives all the freaking damned time.

Just, what the hell?

This author is a freaking ASSHOLE.

13. Tolerance for loneliness and emptiness
A lonely person avoids socializing and laments a solitary life. 

Lots of people feel so alone in this world. They have a super high tolerance for loneliness, even though they don’t enjoy it. They routinely avoid socializing and making new friends because the loneliness is more comfortable than reaching out.

Or they could just be really shy. Or they could have mental disabilities that keep them from socializing with people. Or any other many reasons that would keep them from socializing with people.

Seriously, the “oh, I’m so much better than you” is nauseating.

14. Tolerance for worthlessness.
Someone with low self esteem piles on with daily self-condemnation.

Because it’s so easy to have a better self-esteem.

Trust me on this. It’s not.

15. Settling for personal mediocrity

Depressing mediocrity is often tolerated more than the perceived pressure of success and high responsibility. Thousands of mid-level managers, would-be entrepreneurs and trapped housewives dream of doing something really great with their lives, but are much more comfortable with their current lot. Tolerance for mediocrity is the culprit.

Because obviously it’s because they WANT to be that way, and not because they don’t have the opportunity to do something great.

16. Intolerance for happiness

Nathaniel Branden called it happiness anxiety. This happens when you become happy, then anxious (because you know the happiness won’t last).

When bad news is just around the corner, you abandon the happy state in favor of hanging out where you are more comfortable – with your problems.

Because obviously depressed people just HATE happiness!

17. Tolerance of fear, anxiety, and needless uncertainty

Because obviously the only reason we’re anxious is because we HATE feeling prepared, so it’s 100% your fault.

18. Tolerance for guilt

Because we all really want to feel guilty forever and ever, I mean, there’s no such thing as a mental disorder that can cause you to do things that are wrong, right?

And obviously it’s so easy to break a habit. Just don’t do it anymore. See? Problem solved! Where’s my cookie?!

19. Tolerance for conflict

Because obviously the only reason people fight is because they WANT to fight. It’s not as if there’s a legitimate reason to argue and be mad, right?

So don’t be mad if the person you’re arguing with was late AGAIN, and don’t be mad if your partner was cheating on you or spent all of your money at Vegas. Just smile and get over it!

20. Tolerance for being controlled

Because obviously the way to solve being a doormat is by saying “don’t be a doormat anymore”. Problem solved!

NaturalNews: king of simple solutions for complex problems.

From NaturalNews: We Should Totally Tell Cancer Patents to Use DMSO!

There is so much cancer quackery in the world, I swear. I don’t think it’s ever possible to get to the bottom of the barrel, since it’s like everywhere.

That and autism quackery, but that’s its own little can of worms.

The article: “Whatever Happened to DMSO for Cancer and What Is It Anyway?”

But before the mocking, let’s do a little science lesson.

DMSO (dimethyl sulfide) is an organosulfer polar solvent, a byproduct of the paper production process. It is mincible (i.e. it can easily create solutions) with numerous solvents and can easily tolerate strong bases due to its acidity, which makes it useful for chemical analysis.  It is also used to preserve frozen tissues in cyropreservation, in order to prevent cell rupture due to the formation of large ice crystals. It also can easily penetrate cellular membranes without damaging it, and transport chemicals along with it. For this reason, it is used as a drug vehicle in experiments.

Because of the latter property, it was the subject of experimentation in the 1960s. However, these experiments were soon stopped when people began to worry about possible side effects. Damage to the eye, headaches, a burning sensation at the application site, itching, and a strong garlic odor/taste in the mouth have been reported. Furthermore, because it can easily dissolve numerous substances, there is a risk of absorbing unwanted contaminants into the skin along with the drug(s) desired. For these reasons, the FDA has not approved the use of DMSO in humans for any condition exempting interstitial cystitis (i.e. a really, really, really painful bladder). The FDA also has put DMSO products on a list of fake cancer “cures” to avoid.

There is some evidence that DMSO might be useful as a drug carrier for the treatment of bladder cancer. However, further testing is needed.

Now for the mocking.

The initial excitement during the 1960s and ’70s for a wide variety of uses with natural, inexpensive DMSO […]

DMSO is “natural” now even though it’s an industrial byproduct? *raises eyebrows*

SCAM proponents have a weird definition on “natural”.

[…] was eventually suppressed by the Medical Mafia and followed by obligatory disinformation campaigns.

Because there was evidence of glaucoma when we were using it in animal models. That’s not suppression, that’s saying that the risk is too great.

The unofficial explanation for the Camelot raid and shutdown was that the clinic was using vitamin B17, or laetrile, an FDA-banned substance for treating cancer. Laetrile was banned even after it was proven safe and efficacious against cancer. Because as a natural substance, it wasn’t patentable for huge profits.

I went over the story of laetrile in a previous post. Needless to say, laetrile has been linked to cyanide poisoning, is not effective for anything, and is not safe to consume.

Also, just saying, but you don’t need to patent something to make huge profits. Acetaminophen isn’t patented, and yet it still brings large profits to the companies that sell it. In addition, much of the medicines that we have come initially come from natural sources (e.g. aspirin, digoxin).

(I really need to finish that series. Note to self.)

Instead of the chemo destroying everything in its path as usual, the DMSO escorted the chemo to cancer cells only, thus greatly reducing the amount of chemotherapy needed for a result.

DMSO can read minds? And it somehow intuitively knows to only go towards the cancer cells, and not to the eye or whatnot? And it’s smart enough to not transport chemotherapy drugs to surrounding cells?

The scientist in me finds it really, really, really hard to suspend belief.

Using only 10% of any chemotherapy drug and getting positive results adversely affects Big Pharma’s profits.

See: Damage to the eye, headaches, a burning sensation at the application site, itching, and a strong garlic odor/taste in the mouth have been reported.

Also, uh, if it worked, scientists would happy embrace the treatment and we’d call it medicine. If there was something better, and it worked, why would pharmaceutical companies NOT want to market it? And why would doctors NOT use it? After all, the goal of medicine is to treat and help patients—if there was something better that we can use for a treatment, we’d totally use it.

DMSO has been used by itself for anecdotal success with cancer.

Anecdotes =! data.

Now, NaturalNews was nice to us, and threw us a bone with a study done in India. This is the study in question. The actual text is behind a pay wall, so I can’t actually go over the methodology and see if it’s valid.

But let’s say it is. Let’s say that it actually does what it says it does.

One study isn’t enough. We still need to be able to replicate it, see if the results in rats can apply to humans, etc. So while it is promising, this is by no means the end of the controversy. That’s how it works.

The FDA requires DMSO to be sold only as a solvent. Please research thoroughly with the sources provided before purchasing DMSO.

Industrial DMSO is not pharmaceutical grade. There’s a huge chance that there’s contaminants (both chemical and bacterial, since it’s not sterile) inside industrial DMSO, and these contaminants might kill you. DO NOT DO THIS.

Needless to say, I don’t recommend you actually purchasing DMSO and using that to treat cancer. At least not at this time. More research is needed to see if it works.

Happy Saturday!

Apparently Heartiste Thinks Feminism Is About Cuckolding as Many Men as Possible

[citation needed]

You’re really going to need a [citation needed] sign for this post.

Bonus post! Because I’m a bit of a sadomasochist and I need something to mock!

The article: “The Feminist Push to Sanction Female Infidelity” (from Heartiste, a PUA)
Its inspiration: “The Upside of Infidelity: Can an Affair Save Your Marriage?” (Slate)

Now, the Slate article is interesting. The main thing you need to know is that some therapists think that for some marriages, if a person is found to have had a conflict avoidance affair (“generally found among couples whose arguments never escalate into screaming matches” according to Slate), it can serve as a wake up call for a couple to get their act together and discuss their issues, which may end up saving a marriage.

The article starts off with an hypothetical: a wife cheats on her husband while he was away in Afghanistan, and the two of them land in therapy. They talk about their issues, and slowly they stop blaming each other and start asking questions in order to resolve their underlying issues.

Then Heartiste read the article title, the first two paragraphs of the scenario, and then went off ranting on how feminists are trying to get men cuckolded.

Let’s get started.

Advanced apologies for the f-bombs. I should probably just add that to the about page or find a way to warn people ahead of time.

What feminists are attempting to do here is nothing short of legitimize the biologically innate female imperative to fuck alpha males during ovulation and extract resources from beta males during infertile periods of the monthly cycle.


No, seriously. What?

What evidence is there that there is such thing as an alpha male, a beta male, or a “biologically innate female imperative” to bang and leech according to her period?

Feminists and various “health professionals” would agitate to normalize the “alpha fux, beta bux” female mating strategy. As society becomes ever more feminized and emasculated, expect to see more of these rancid ideas percolate in mainstream discussion, as the pro-female directive and anti-male directive reach their demonic apotheoses.

You know what this thing is missing? Evidence.

Also, what is with the “alpha fux, beta bux”? Are you trying to emulate wannabe 12 year old gangsters who think that spelling words with an “x” at the end and maybe a gang sign or two is enough to make a person cool?

The divorce industrial and family court complexes are rigged against the interests of men, and getting more rigged by the day.

[citation needed]

An army of leftoids fed on the swill of legalese will barely break a sweat holding the contradictory beliefs that women cheat for good reasons and men cheat because they’re oppressive patriarchs.

[citation needed]

Eventually, with the help of dazzling sophistry, the law will be twisted to such a warped geometry that the people will come to accept injustice as fairness and lies as truth. And those who bitterly cling to old-fashioned notions of justice will be scorned as rubes and cast out of polite society, their reputations and livelihoods destroyed with the ease of smashing an insect.

Heartiste, you’re as bad of a writer as Stephanie Meyer.

No, wait. That’s an insult to Meyer. Sorry, Ms. Meyer.

The irony of this feminism-inspired dross is that a case can be made that male infidelity might very well enhance marital stability, over the long term.

And now we’re at the heart of this post: letting men bang as many women as they want, without any consequences whatsoever.

Men are naturally disposed to seek and enjoy mate variety, […]

[citation needed]

[…] and men are better than women at maintaining multiple lovers without sacrificing love or duty for any one of them.

So many assertions. So little evidence.

A cheating husband who gets his sexual needs met will feel less resentment toward his frigid wife.

Because if a man cheats on his wife, it’s always 100% the wife’s fault because she doesn’t do sex on command.

And if a man cheats, a woman’s supposed to just smile and pretend that nothing is wrong in their relationship, ever.

A cheating wife, in contrast, will feel more resentment for her beta husband who will assume the role for her of the man “keeping her from happiness”.

Because the only two settings a woman has is hate and more hate.

This isn’t to suggest that excusing male infidelity is good for the institution of marriage and the sustenance of an advanced, high trust civilization. Only that, if we are to set down this road of rationalizing the benefits of infidelity, it makes a lot more sense to grant husbands the generous latitude to pursue extramarital pleasures than it does to grant wives that same freedom.

“I have a right to cheat on you, because you refused to sleep with me the other night. You are never to complain, because I’m a logical man and I have needs, damn it! If you didn’t want me to cheat, you’d never say no to sex!”

Feminism is the sick, wheezing spawn of its parent ideology, equalism, the belief in a magical flying spaghetti monster that imbues all humans with equal ability and equal worth, […]

Hey! Don’t you dare insult the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

And what the hell is equalism? Is that like a new religion where we worship equal signs and give offerings to our masters “1+1=2” and “2+2=4”?

[…] interchangeable flesh cogs […]

We’re in a machine now?

[…] that can as easily master astrophysics as lawn care […]

Because women are inherently too stupid to understand science.

[…] given the right dose of self-esteem boosting pablum.

Because there’s something wrong with you if you have any sense of self-worth.

Whatever the self-professed noble intentions of their advocates, these ideologies are as wicked and destructive as any genocidal revolutions that have come before them.

Because an article saying that maybe an affair could serve as a wake-up call to resolve issues in a marriage is equivalent to mother freaking genocide.

Feminism’s proponents will suffer endless ridicule should they choose to fight, or they will retreat from the public square to lick their wounds in the comfort of their silent seething thoughts.

I’m sensing some psychological projection going on here.

And, if the spoils of victory are rich indeed, some will self-deliver to release the pain.

Ew, dude. I don’t really need to know what you’re wanking off to.

Happy mocking!

My One Trip to the Cesspool of Pesudoscience:

Today, I went off the deep end in search of new blog material, I opened an incognito window on my browser, and typed in in the address bar.

Oh gods. Oh, oh gods.

I knew that was not a reliable source and that if you quote it seriously, you’re going to get laughed out of the room. I knew that that site was going to be chock full of misinformation and that you need to watch out before you get sucked in. Everything pesudoscientific ever to come into existence can and will end up here, plus some additional things such as conspiracy theories.

So I thought I knew what to expect.

It’s even worse than that.

The following is a sample page on what you might find on This is a screenshot, and not a link to the actual page itself. Hence, none of the links are clickable. You have been forewarned.

It’s so wrong that it’s not even wrong anymore.

I don’t even think this is worth debunking or mocking. It’s so ridiculous, mocking it won’t even do it justice. That’s how bad it is.

I’m going to go find brain bleach.

Happy Friday!



Happy Veteran’s Day people! Today, another serving of woo, mocked up to your taste.

Woo NEVER gets old, does it?

The article: “Raw Organic Fruits and Vegetables Can Cure Cancer, So Why Don’t Oncologists Tell Their Patients?”

The presumption: raw foods will cure a cancer patient.

Someone want to explain to me how that works?

There is a 75-year “CON” known as Western Medicine, but it’s a hush-hush topic in the news and in newspapers and magazines. Although medical doctors and surgeons are experts at fixing broken bones or removing animal fat from clogged arteries, the “pharmaceutical nation” known as the USA is caving in on itself, but nobody is allowed to talk about it on TV, or they lose all their sponsors.

Only a few sentences in and we’re already getting ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!!11!!. It’s like BOOM! CONSPIRACY! IN YOUR FACE!

And of course the media’s in on it. And the doctors, and Big Pharma.

How many people were bribed again?

There is also a world of medicine known as organic food, but some people want to cook it, fry it, boil it or broil it, or even worse, grill it out, and that LIVE food becomes DEAD food, useless to the body, which needs nutrients for immunity, cellular health, vitality and sustainability.

Because it’s so terrible to want to eat something warm and soft rather than something cold. And because obviously we were much better off before the invention of fire, when we had to risk diseases.

And of course, because by the time the food gets to your stomach, it’s not already dead/denatured/whatever from the stomach acids.

So why don’t oncologists talk about RAW foods, which are full of nutrients, oxygen for the cells (the cure for cancer) and the RAW REGIMEN when people are on their “death beds” or “sent home to die” with pancreatic cancer, liver cancer or cancer of some other organ that you have to have to survive?


  1. More nutrients =! cancer cure?
  2. You get more oxygen through breathing than by eating (besides the fact that your gut doesn’t actually absorb oxygen)?
  3. We have evidence that chemotherapy can help treat/cure people, and we have evidence that people who forego conventional cancer therapy just so that they can eat vegetables 24/7 die?
  4. Giving false hope to patients is really unethical?

Are these “Western Medicine” practitioners evil, money-grabbing cons or are they just ignorant, miseducated and unknowing? How could that be? How could you be trained to do surgery or read lab results and not know ONE THING about nutrition? Do some of them know but are not saying because their income would drop to about 25% of what they make now, using dangerous chemicals to treat a chemical-driven disease?

False dichotomy much?

Of course doctors know about nutrition. They also know that we don’t actually have evidence showing that ODing on micronutrients is going to treat/cure cancer.

Also, the fact that this author thinks that cancer is chemically-driven shows how much this author actually understands cancer.

(Hint: although hazardous chemicals can increase your risk for cancer, cancer is, first and foremost, uncontrollable cell division due to screwed up DNA).

No oncologist in the world suggests medicinal mushrooms, and take a big guess why!

Because eating a whole bunch of mushrooms isn’t going to treat/cure cancer?

(For a second there I thought the author meant psychedelic mushrooms. Uhhh.)

I mean, I know that oncologists do recommend people to eat healthier, but uh, that’s pretty much the same advice your physician gives you as a matter of point.

The answer to every one of the questions above is to just listen to the people who DO KNOW about RAW foods and can tell wonderful stories of their own recovery from deadly cancer and why they chose nutrition over chemo, surgery and radiation. Learn from honest souls who share their most personal journeys, through and past the “cons” of the cancer-industrial complex.

Because obviously anecdotes are the same as data if you have a lot of them.

Consider the fact that even scientists have found a natural cure for cancer, and people TESTIFY in court that it works, even for children with “terminal” cancer

Because court testimony is the same thing as a randomized clinical trial.

Check out Fooducate – the free phone app that scans the barcodes of foods and drinks, tells you if it’s GMO and rates it for quality!

Except that GMOs don’t cause cancer. And the scientific consensus agrees that GMOs are perfectly safe.

[…] if you don’t “eat” cancer, it doesn’t “eat” you.

Wait. Why were you even considering going down on Cancer anyhow?

I don't think going down on Cancer's very comfortable.

No, seriously. Why were you considering going down on this? It boggles the mind.

“I Don’t Understand Evolution, Ergo It’s a LIE!” (NaturalNews Mocking)

Or, how Adams thinks he played “GOTCHA” with evolutionary biologists when he realized that evolution isn’t the same as abiogenesis.

First off, the article, “Huge Contradictions in ‘Scientific’ Thinking Reveled: Theory of Evolution in No Way Explains Origins of Life”.

First off, duh? The scientific community already knew this since, uh, after Darwin came up with what will become the theory of evolution via natural selection?

Seriously, the ONLY people who think that evolution = “explanation for all of life” are:

  1. Creationists.
  2. People who didn’t pay attention in science class when the topic of evolutionary biology came up.
  3. Anti-science cranks.

These are categories not mutually exclusive.

With that, lets get mocking!

Ask any scientist where life on our planet came from, and they’ll usually give you a one-word answer: “Evolution.”

Ask any not-strawscientist where life on our planet comes from, and they’ll explain that it’s more complicated, but that much of the scientific consensus believes that abiogenesis is the where life came from and evolution is where we all specialized into becoming different kingdoms, phyla, families, genus, species, whatever.

Immediately thereafter, they will usually give you a condescending look that also implies you’re an idiot for not knowing this “scientific fact” that everyone else has accepted as true.

Yeah, because you are a dumbass if you think that you know more than evolutionary biologists on this subject. That’s as stupid as thinking that you can overturn special relativity with a thought experiment regarding a racecar and a train after learning about it one hour ago.

How idiotic Adams seems to be right now. Credit to xkcd.

How idiotic Adams seems to be right now. Credit to xkcd.

It turns out, however, that the scientist is suffering from a delusion. Evolution doesn’t even encompass origins of life. Rather, evolution (i.e. “natural selection”) explains a process by which species undergo a process of adaptation, fitness and reproduction in response to environmental, behavioral and sexual influences. No rational person can deny that natural selection is ever-present and happening right now across bacteria, plants, animals and even humans, yet natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms. It does not give rise to non-existent life.

Duh? I mean, it’s not like every reputable scientist under the sun doesn’t know this.

Adams, that straw looks mighty large. You sure you need it all?

Darwin, in other words, did not study the “reproduction of rocks” because there is no such thing. He studied animals which were already alive.

Yeah, we’re not stupid Adams. You might think that your readers are, but I have more respect for my own readers than that.

Also, abiogenesis =! “reproduction of rocks”.

Thus, the “Theory of Evolution” utterly fails to address the ORIGIN of where the first life forms came from.

You keep using the word theory. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

How did natural selection have anything to work on in the first place? You can’t “evolve” life forms from dead rocks, after all… unless the evolutionists are now embracing the theory of spontaneous resurrection of dead objects into living organisms.

So the question remains: Where did life ORIGINATE?

It’s call abiogenesis, Adams. Which is separate from the theory of evolution via natural selection, as you yourself have already noted.

I mean, it’s not like scientists have been asking this question for a long while.

And by the way, Adams, abiogenesis doesn’t mean life came from rocks. Just saying!

Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question.

Correction: strawscientists prefer to skip over the origins of life. REAL scientists did ask, and have already begun to draw answers. Again, abiogenesis.

According to scientists, you can never argue with scientists because they uniquely have a monopoly on all knowledge.

LOLWUT. Monopoly on ALL KNOWLEDGE? Even the knowledge on what you do at night?

Yes, I know what you do at night. I’m a scientist-in-training, it’s one of my first homework assignments in science college.

Be terrified.

Their beliefs can never be questioned because they are beyond any need to be validated.

Other than this archive of creationist claims regarding abiogenesis and numerous responses, with references, debunking them?

And other than the following links, which is only a small sampling of all of the evidence we have for evolution and the like?

“Scientific truth” is true because they say it is, […]

Because obviously saying that all scientists are incompetent quacks is true because you say it’s true, just like how your claims that you know more than an evolutionary biologist on the subject of abiogenesis/evolution is true because you say it’s true.

[…] and the faith-based belief that evolution explains the origins of life cannot be questioned either.

Adams, did you buy your strawscientists in bulk from Costco?

The entire cosmos starts out as an unimaginably dense point that explodes in an event cosmologists call the Big Bang. All the physical matter we know today has its origins in that event, yet, importantly, there was no life in the Big Bang. No biological organism could have possibly survived Inflation, for starters. And before Inflation, the density of matter would have crushed anything resembling biological life.

According to physicists, the Big Bang itself followed no pre-existing laws of the cosmos. In fact, all physical laws that we know of — gravity, electromagnetism, etc. — came out of the Big Bang. Even the very fabric of reality was created by it (space and time).

The Big Bang is the faith-based miracle of modern science. “Give me one miracle,” they’re fond of saying, “and we can explain everything that follows.”

Except the miracle of the Big Bang itself goes entirely unexplained. How could everything suddenly come from nothing? How could an entire universe come into existence without a cause? These questions are routinely ignored. Instead, we are told that we should believe in the Big Bang as a matter of faith and trust that it is the only exception to the laws of the universe. This is, of course, a matter of faith, not fact.

Oh my gods, the stupid, it’s too much.

Right now, I need to establish that I am not a physicist and that while I can give a nuanced explanation on what the Big Bang is (thank you Wikipedia!), I can’t fully explain it, and that any questions should be directed to your nearest physicist.

The Big Bang Theory (not the TV show, the scientific theory) is basically the leading theory describing how the universe came to be and where matter comes from. It does not describe conditions pre-Big Bang, only how the universe came to be and how the universe evolved into its current form. As such, the question on what the universe was like pre-Big Bang is irrelevant to this theory, just as the Big Bang is irrelevant towards explaining abiogenesis, which is irrelevant towards explaining the theory of evolution via natural selection. That is to say, these theories stand on their own, and are independent of one another.

The nuanced, simplistic description is as follows: once upon a time, there was a singularity in the universe, and it was very dense and very hot. This expanded extremely fast, and led to rapidly cycling temperatures and pressures, which led to the birth of elementary particles (quarks, leptons, and bosons). This gradually became less and less dense, as the singularity expanded further and further, which led to lower temperatures, and as such, these elementary particles began to lose energy and slow down. Eventually, it cooled down enough to prevent the formation of additional elementary particles, which led to a mass destruction of quarks and bosons. These came together to form electrons, neutrons, and protons, which soon became atoms, which soon became matter. And such, matter was born!

This theory is supported by evidence, including cosmic microwave background radiation, various tests in particle accelerators, and the fact that galaxies are actually moving further and further away from one another.

What do you take away from this?

  1. Duh, of course the Big Bang Theory doesn’t explain life. It’s an independent theory that does not correlate with abiogenesis in ANY way. If we take away the Big Bang, abiogenesis will still work.
  2. The theory does not state that something came from nothing. That’s way too simplistic and not at all accurate.
  3. We have evidence that the Big Bang happened, so it’s not based on faith.
  4. Adams really needs to consider consulting a dictionary to learn what “faith” means and what science really is.
  5. Adam must have gotten a pretty good deal on those strawscientists.

Also, seriously, argument from credulity? King of Logical Fallacies, Adams is.

And what about the origins of life in all this? Today, supposedly 13.8 billion years later, we see life all around us. Logically, somewhere between the Big Bang — where no life existed — and today, life must have appeared.

But how?


Ultimately, the answer given by scientists is that life spontaneously sprang from lifelessness. Seriously, that’s their real answer. They have more technical-sounding names for it, and there are hundreds of books written on various theories that might explain it, but ultimately, scientists believe in magic. Because “magic” is the only way you can really explain life rising from lifelessness.


Nuanced explanation of abiogenesis covers: this basically describes how organic chemical compounds (e.g. amino acids) could be produced from inorganic chemicals, and how these organic chemical monomers eventually evolved into more and more complex organic chemical polymers which eventually led to primitive life.

Some of the stuff that we know from experimentation: that methane, ammonia, water, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide/dioxide, and phosphate were present in large amounts in the atmosphere, that free oxygen (as in O2 or O3 gas) was rare or absent, that an energy source (e.g. electricity from thunderstorms, ultraviolet light, impact) allowed various reactions to occur that led to the formation of basic amino acids. and that polymers can spontaneously form under the conditions that were possible when Earth was still a young planet.

In other words, it does not mean “once upon there was a rock and somehow the rock gave rise to bacteria”.


All of a sudden, the idea of a Creator who seeded the Big Bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the “magical” explanations of many conventional scientists. It is far more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.

You know, I was mocking how Adams called the field of genetics a lie, and one of the things I swore he was going to say was that “evolution is too hard, God done it”.

26 days later, he hath done it! Because the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution is too hard, God done it! Even though there is absolutely no evidence of any supernatural deity, whereas we have a large body of evidence supporting the Big Bang, abiogenesis, AND evolution!


Conventional scientists, of course, will go through tremendous contortions to try to remove any idea of a designer, engineer or Creator from their worldview. That’s because nearly all of them are devout atheists who also disavow any belief in consciousness, free will, the soul, God or spirituality.


According to their own explanations, they themselves are mindless biological robots suffering from the mere delusion of mind created as a kind of artificial projection of mechanistic biological brain function.

I seriously think that Adams has an addition to strawscientists. It’s the only thing that makes any sense right now.

The twisted philosophy of many scientists also raises bizarre ethical lapses, such as their belief that killing a lab rat, or a dog, or even another human being is of no ethical consequence since all those creatures are not actually “alive” in any real way. This is why drug companies, vaccine manufacturers and science in general feels no remorse for conducting deadly experiments on children, blacks, prisoners or minorities.


Also, we feel no remorse? So why do we have a field called bioethics, laws requiring that we get approval from Institutional Review Boards before we can conduct trials on human subjects, and something called “informed consent”?

Seriously, there’s a reason why we have Phase I, II, and III trials: you have to pass Phase I (Petri dishes) to get to Phase II (animal models) and you have to pass Phase II before we get to Phase III (human subjects). If you fail Phase II (e.g. if what you’re testing out doesn’t work as intended), you can’t just say “screw it, let’s mess with human subjects for funsies!”.

The worst trait of conventional scientists is not merely that they are wildly self-deluded into believing they have no real consciousness; it’s actually the fact that they are simultaneously wildly arrogant, even combative about forcing their twisted beliefs onto others.

Because Adams isn’t arrogant at all. I mean, claiming that he knows better than every single scientist in the world and proclaiming that only he knows DA TRUTH is just him being humble. And of course, it’s not like Adams doesn’t lie and imply that scientists are really amoral and cruel and unfeeling, in order to smear scientific concepts that he doesn’t understand, just to “win”, right?

I mean, this is the guy who approved and published on his website an article telling people that they should bleach away their cancer by drinking hydrogen peroxide. But of course, that is TRU COMPASSION, you guys! TRU COMPASSION.

Their faith-based beliefs are always described as “facts” while they proclaim other people’s beliefs are “delusions.”

Because Adams doesn’t outright claim that science is a total lie, and describes himself as the Health Ranger and the one who knows DA REAL TRUTH.

You cannot argue with any group of people who are wholly convinced their beliefs are facts because any critical thinking you might invoke is automatically and routinely rejected as a matter of irrational defense.

Because obviously critical thinking = “adhom science in order to make it sound stupid, and assert that only you know DA TRUTH”.

As an example of this, ask any doctor or pharmacist this question: “Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine?”

I’m well aware that vaccines do carry some risks (duh) and that some people should never be vaccinated, ever. However, if a vaccine has FDA approval, and so long as you’re not allergic to any of a vaccine’s ingredients, it’s usually perfectly safe.

In the faith-based beliefs of the scientific status quo, no vaccine can ever be harmful by definition. Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, and so the very question of asking if a vaccine could possibly be anything less than 100% safe doesn’t compute. It contradicts their faith, in other words.

Strawscientists and now strawdoctors? Huh. Because I’ve never met any doctor who claimed that the vaccine was 100% without risk.

You can test this further by asking a vaccine-pushing doctor, “Is there anything that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe?”

After careful thought, an honest doctor might answer, “Well, sure, there are all sorts of toxins that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe.”

Ask them to name some examples. Sooner or later, they should stumble onto the self-evident answer of “mercury,” a deadly neurotoxin which remains present in many modern vaccines.

Because the question “could you add anything in a vaccine to make it unsafe” can be asked in good faith and doesn’t signal that you have an agenda.

Also, Adams, you realize that mercury and thiomersal are not the same thing, right? One of them is an elemental compound, and the other is a preservative that happens to have mercury atoms in it. I mean, if you’re breathing in large amounts of the stuff or touching it, it’ll hurt you, but the amount you get in a vaccine is so little, you actually get more mercury containing compounds from consuming fish than you can by getting your shots.

This is not to mention that the only vaccine to have thiomersal in it is the flu vaccine, and only for multidose vials.

Ask the doctor, “Has any safe level of mercury ever been established for injection into a child?”

The answer, of course, is no. Logically, no vaccine containing mercury can be considered “safe” regardless of the level of mercury it contains.

Mercury =! thiomersal, Adams.

Also, we did do tests to see if thiomersal was safe. It is.

In addition, if even a small number of mercury compounds is enough to say “nope, not safe, buh buh”, you should probably throw out your CFL bulbs and the fish you were going to consume tonight. But be careful to not break the bulbs, unless you want to actually get mercury on the floor.

If, at any point in this questioning process, you get stonewalled by this person, recognize they are abandoning reason and reverting to their faith in “Scientism.” Scientism is a system of belief in which all creations of pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and chemical companies are automatically assumed to hold God-like status. They are beyond questioning. They are supreme. They can never be questioned or even validated. In fact, no validated is required nor even desired. Who needs to validate “facts” anyway? Everyone already knows they are true, right?

So, all scientists are atheists, but scientists treat pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, and chemical companies as like God?

And Adams thinks that science is really just a circlejerk of people saying “nope, nope, nope, nope”, even though one of the main tenets of science is to ask questions and look for evidence to support one’s claims? And he also somehow thinks that we don’t question ourselves and repeat experiments and tests and review our own work to make sure that it makes sense?

Adams does not know how to logic.

All drugs are assumed to be safe and effective unless proven otherwise.


This is why doctors warn patients that their dietary supplements are “interfering with their medications” and not the other way around.


Many scientists, sadly, do not grasp the chasms in their own belief systems. They are incapable of realizing that many of their own beliefs are based in a system of faith rather than a system of rational thought.

Replace “many scientists” with Adams and his ilk, and you have a perfect description on what CAM actually is.

Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right.

Which is why when I do debunking posts in the name of SCIENCE, I never directly link to sources to prove my point.

Even the theory of natural selection based on purely mechanistic genetic inheritance contains enormous gaps in logic and is therefore a matter of faith. For starters, there isn’t enough data storage in the human genome to fully describe the physical and behavioral inheritance of a human being. The massive failure of the Human Genome Project also comes to mind: Here’s a project that promised to solve the riddle of the origins of nearly all disease. Once the human genome was fully decoded, disease would be eliminated from humankind, we were all promised.

The Human Genome Project never promised to be the cure for all diseases ever. Its only goal was to figure out the human genome code; whatever was done with said code is up to anyone who wants to use it to do research.

I already debunked much of the rest in a previous post on this particular subject.

Another glaring contradiction among many scientists is their comedic belief that everyone else is a mindless biological robot except themselves! Yes, they alone have intelligent thought based on free will, inspiration and creativity. We should read their books alone, as their books came from original thoughts powered by unique minds.

How many strawscientists did Adams ask before making that profound statement?

Most conventional scientists claim that consciousness is an illusion which somehow arose out of natural selection so that individual members of a species could operate under the illusion of free will. Yet, at the same time, they claim this false “mind” has no actual impact on the real world because it is, by definition, an illusion.

Which is why psychology is totally not a science and why psychiatrists and mental health therapists aren’t real medical providers.

So how can an illusory phenomenon drive natural selection and evolution if it has no impact on the real world?

Adams, I’m sorry to inform you, but just wishing for a larger brain isn’t going to magically give you and your descendants larger brains. Not even if you wish for it very, very, very hard.

Any system of thought which cannot tolerate questions or challenges to its beliefs is no science at all.

Which is why CAM isn’t science at all, unless the study reinforces their own confirmation biases.

Oh yeah, and we have a group of questions at the bottom! As a true believer of “Scientism”, I should be totally qualified to answer these questions!

Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine? Or are all vaccines automatically safe by definition?

A vaccine is a drug. And there is no such thing as a drug that is 100% safe.

The answer lies in the risk-benefit analysis: do the benefits outweigh the risks? You will find that the benefits of vaccines (herd immunity from some really terrible diseases, such as measles, and possibly full eradication of diseases like smallpox and hopefully polio) outweigh the risks of vaccines.

Do you beat your dog? If animals have no souls and no consciousness, then do you agree it is of no ethical consequence to torture dolphins and elephants? What about primates? Cats? Neighbors?

You’re begging the question, Adams. For someone who claims that we don’t know how to spot logical fallacies, you really suck at this.

To answer the question: no, I do not condone animal abuse. And I do not condone torture in all forms.

If free will does not exist, then no one can be held responsible for their actions. All actions are, by definition, “automatic” and of no fault of the person because there cannot be any “choice” in an unconscious brain. If you believe this, then do you also support freeing all murderers and rapists from prison because they are not responsible for their actions? What purpose does punishment serve if violent criminals have no “choice” because they have no free will?

You’re begging the question again, Adams.

Personal answer: I believe that we do have the power to make choices. A rapist chooses to rape someone, and a murderer chose to kill someone.

The thing is, you can only control a few things. You can’t, for example, wish that you can have a larger brain. And you can’t wish for the laws of science to not work.

If the human genome doesn’t contain enough information to describe a complete human form, then how is inheritance purely mechanistic?

You’re begging the question again. The answer is that the human genome has more than enough information to create the entire human form, and that genetics is much more complicated than you think it is.

If consciousness is an illusion, by what mechanism does the brain create this illusion? And for what purpose? What evolutionary advantage could this serve if the “illusion of consciousness” cannot have any “real” impact on behavior? By definition, natural selection should de-emphasize useless brain functions. So how did consciousness survive for so long?

Scientists do not think that consciousness is an illusion. If we did, then psychiatry would not be a legit medical field and cognitive therapy would not work.

The latter part of that question is idiotic and makes absolutely no sense.

If natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms, where did the first life come from? How did it arise? (Magic?)

Abiogenesis. Go look it up.

What caused the Big Bang? If nothing caused it, how do you explain a universe governed by “laws” which, itself, sprang into existence by not following laws?

Singularities, also you realize vacuums aren’t actually stable, right?

If the laws of the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, and if other parallel universes might have different constants governing variations of the physical laws we know and understand, how does our universe “remember” its selected laws? Can physical constants change? Can the speed of light change? Does it vary in a repeatable pattern?


Any publication that says people should not know what’s in their food (GMO labeling) is, of course, not engaged in real science because real science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the burying of facts for corporate interests. No legitimate science would want the public to be denied knowledge.

Besides the “no true Scotsman” fallacy that is being employed here, I’m going to come out and say it: I believe that GMOs should be labeled.

HOWEVER, I also believe that campaigning for GMO labeling should be based on good science, not “studies” such as this.

(Oh yeah, Adams! You claim that scientists have no qualms with killing/torturing animals! How do you explain the fact that that anti-GMO study—which is based on really, really, REALLY bad science—allowed the rats’ tumors to become 25% of their own body mass and took pictures of them in pain? Do you consider this ethical, and why?)

They all believe that murder, rape and even child molestation have no ethical considerations whatsoever because no one is responsible for their own actions due to free will being “an illusion” as they explain it. Jerry Sandusky is ethically equivalent to Mother Theresa, according to the soulless beliefs of modern-day science.



No evidence is required to support their core faiths such as “mercury in dental fillings is harmless” or “chemotherapy saves lives.” 

Except for the fact that there is evidence that silver amalgam is perfectly safe and that chemotherapy actually saves lives.

And don’t even get me started on the rise of killer robots and artificial intelligence. That’s another case where the arrogance and delusional thinking of modern-day science may quite literally result in the apocalyptic, permanent destruction of humankind.

Because we actually have killer robots and AIs smart enough to kill people.

I’m sorry to say, Adams, but GLaDOS isn’t real.

The Newest Vitamin Miracle Drug: C for Cracked Up (NaturalNews Mocking)

Damn it, I think I’m going to need a weekend to mock the infographic. I need the time to do freaking research, and I have homework to do.

In the meanwhile, since we got all serious for the last week or so (or as serious as possible), let me by some time with one of my favorite things to do: NaturalNews mocking!

To start off with, apparently Vitamin C is the cure for over 30 different diseases, including chicken pox, rubella, measles, mumps, tetanus, and polio. You know, the ones that we can prevent now with our vaccines?

And of course, toss on some conspiracy and some anti-science nonsense, and we have your typical NaturalNews article, void on facts and chock full of Vitamin Wut!

Let’s get started.

Over 75 years of medical research and clinical practice reveals, overwhelmingly, that vitamin C has the power to ignite the ‘self-healing response’.

I thought that my immune system does just fine on its own? I mean, if Vitamin C can “ignite the self-healing response”, why doesn’t it work to cure AIDS? Why can’t it cure my hypothyroidism? And why is it that if I cut myself today, my skin will still heal itself even if I haven’t eaten any substantial Vitamin C source in over 24 hours? After all, Vitamin C is water soluble, and you need to take in more every single day.

Medical students receive little nutritional training – only 2 hours in 4 years!

[citation needed]

Believe it or not, in the 1940’s, Dr. Klenner used vitamin C to cure 60 out of 60 cases of polio and that was back in the days when the polio vaccine didn’t even exist. Dr. Klenner even presented his findings – at a large medical conference about his success with high dose vitamin C therapy and it was largely ignored.


But seriously, I’d like to read these case studies. I think there’s more to this than Adams is telling us (as if he can read anything scientific anyhow), but I can’t prove it without the documents relating to the case studies itself.

Instead, big pharma has a stranglehold ‘death grip’ over the I.Q. of most doctors – brainwashing them into believing that toxic antibiotics that destroy intestinal flora (and the immune system) is a ‘wiser’ choice.

Brainwashing? The horror!

How the hell do antibiotics kill off the immune system though? Someone explain that one to me, because I can’t imagine it.

I mean, I’m aware that antibiotics can kill bacteria (duh), but that doesn’t mean that antibiotics will kill you, the person. Otherwise, we’d die from eating chocolate.

Dr. Klenner was one of the first physicians to cure disease with vitamin C. In fact, he consistently eliminated chicken pox, measles, mumps, tetanus and polio with huge doses of IV vitamin C. And, keep in mind, Dr. Klenner did this when vaccines didn’t even exist.

[citation or case studies needed]

Dr. Klenner cured pneumonia, encephalitis, herpes zoster (shingles), herpes simplex, mononucleosis, pancreatitis, hepatitis, rocky mountain spotted fever, bladder infections, alcoholism, arthritis, some cancers, leukemia, atherosclerosis, ruptured intervertebral disc, high cholesterol, corneal ulcers, diabetes, glaucoma, radiation burns – the list goes on and on.

Vitamin C can cure all of that? Really, now? Now how does that work, exactly?

After all, some of these diseases are autoimmune disorders (arthritis, and I believe type 1 diabetes), and do you really want to amp up your immune system more? Wouldn’t that, uh, make it worse?

And ruptured disks? How would Vitamin C do anything to fix that? Could Vitamin C even get into the disk itself? Are we sending out white blood cells to the site? Is Vitamin C smart enough to figure out what you want it to do?

And cancer? How does Vitamin C get into the cancer cells and fix the DNA back to normal? Or are we using it to amp up the immune system again?

And how does Vitamin C get rid of high cholesterol, or soften your arteries? Does it have hands to kneed the arteries back together? Does it suck up the cholesterol? Where does the excess go? Where are the waste products?


He published dozens of papers – just ‘google’ Dr. Klenner and you’ll be amazed at what you find.

I did. I was not surprised.

Just pages and pages of SCAM pages, saying the same thing over and over and over.

That’s going to help your credibility, there, Adams.

And then we have the testimonials. Appeal to authority and popularity much?

Adams, I hate to tell you this, but even if you get half of the world to believe you, you’re still wrong. Even if you get half of the Nobel prize winners, you’d still be wrong. Just because a lot of people endorse your product doesn’t mean that your opinion is suddenly fact. You need evidence, which you don’t have.

If you do have evidence, please post them now. But I have to warn you, since you’re claiming this to cure thirty different diseases, you’re going to need very strong evidence, and it better be extraordinary.

In the meanwhile, let’s all celebrate the fact that we’re getting closer to Friday! Yay!

Much Ado About Abortion: Final Thoughts

The last page is mostly testimonials, which is why I’m ignoring it. After all, the plural of anecdote is NOT data, no matter what MRAs/anti-choicers/SCAM propagandists/whatever say.

Instead, I’ll be doing a post on my final thoughts on this, and to explain why, in my very first post on this subject, I said that I don’t consider anti-choice people “pro-life”.

Let’s start with part 1 of my reasoning:

If you’ve been paying attention and reading all of the posts related to this subject, I brought up numerous statistics regarding who gets abortions, when abortions are more likely to occur, and the like. I would like to bring to the forefront this statistic again:

42% of women who seek abortions have incomes less than 100% of the poverty line. 27% of women have incomes between 100-199% above the poverty line.

Why do I bring it up again? Because Medicare does not pay for abortions unless it’s for rape/incest (Google Hyde Amendment), these women need to find funds to get the abortion themselves. Finding the funding needed to have an abortion takes a decent amount of time, which means that she’ll be getting an abortion at a later week.

And the later you delay getting an abortion, the higher the risk is to the woman.

If she doesn’t get an abortion until after the sixteenth week, that means she’s most likely getting a D&E. D&Es have higher health risk than aspiration or medicated abortions, and in the United States, many doctors would administer a shot that will ensure fetal death in order to not break the law that bans partial birth abortion. The shot is not without risk. And while abortion is itself a rather safe procedure, forcing women to face additional risks because they’re poor should be unethical (in my personal opinion).

Part 2 of my reasoning: they’re willing to lie about health risks in order to scare people into falling into their camp, claiming that abortion causes infertility, adverse mental health outcomes, breast cancer (and others), etc.

Let me clarify this for you right now. Abortion does not increase one’s risk of adverse mental health outcomes. Abortion does not increase risk of breast cancer. Abortion does not increase risk of cancers in general, infertility, low birth rate, birth defects, or miscarriage. And again, abortion does not increase one’s risk of adverse mental health outcomes. And again, having more type 1 lobules (common in women who’ve never given birth) in your breasts does not increase risk of breast cancer. And again, abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer.

If you recall from part 7 of this series, I went through their entire article about the supposed link between abortion and breast cancer. It was full of misinformation, but one of the worst was this:

There is evidence of permanent changes in the genes of Type 3 lobules which provide life-long cancer resistance.

As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. And like I said, I have a study that says that women with more Type 3 lobules have a higher risk (if you’re diagnosed with benign breast disease at least).

This is misleading. Women who have had children and who might be reading this might conclude that they might not get cancer, because their breasts are cancer-resistant. This is NOT true, but this could delay detection, and therefore treatment for breast cancer. Stating that they have cancer-resistant boob without a source to back it up (and stating it as if it were a fact) can kill.

Part 3 of my reasoning: the lack of any mention of women who have abortions because their health is at risk. Women have had to get abortions because their health is at risk. Here are some of the risks of pregnancy. On that list are very serious problems, from extreme dehydration due to hyperemesis gravidarum (sort of like morning sickness, but notched to 11), gestational hypertension (high blood pressure), ectopic pregnancy (when the embryo implants outside of the uterus), etc. And of course, there’s the risk of diabetes mellitushypercoagulability (which means risk of blood clots forming in one’s veins), and thyroid problems.

These women are non-existent in the anti-choice camp’s world. When I brought up the fact that there are serious health risks that might end up requiring abortion, the person I was talking to denied this, and stated that she was aware of exactly zero cases of this happening, hence this wasn’t a problem.

This is problematic, to say the least. I know of people in the anti-choice camp who state that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy, even if she will die, because the fetus is much more important than the mother. And anti-choice people are known to heckle at any woman who steps into Planned Parenthood or any other abortion clinic, without caring why she was there in the first place.

Yeah, that’s not exactly pro-life. Shaming women who have to have abortion or other she might die? That’s anti-life. It’s cruel and it’s inhumane and it reduces women to be simply incubators and not people.

And this is why I refuse to refer to those in the anti-choice camp as “pro-life”.

This is the end of the “Much Ado About Abortion” series. Tomorrow: a good, old-fashioned mocking/debunking of a misogynistic infographic!

Much Ado About Abortion: Open Minds and Humanlife Part 8

Or, how adoption is not the same thing as abortion.

One of the great favorites among the anti-choice camp is to tell women “well, you can always put your kid up for adoption!”, acting as if no one has ever suggested this idea in the history of ever and acting as if the problem of abortion was solved once and for all, and no one ever needs to abort ever because adoption is totally the same thing.

Not so fast.

Abortion and adoption are dissimilar from one another. The two of them are not equivalent, have never been equivalent, and will never be equivalent. Adoption is not the end-all of the abortion debate.

But why?

Well, let’s start off with some facts:

Abortion is simply terminating a pregnancy. There are many reasons why women have abortions, from “I can’t afford to have another baby” to “this is the only way to treat this extremely serious fetal defect that makes the fetus non-viable”.

Adoption is being pregnant for the entire nine months, giving birth to a baby, and then giving it away, in the hopes that some other couple will take the baby home and call it their child.

Adoption requires you to be pregnant for the full term, which means that you have to pay the costs for prenatal care, birth, and postpartum care. Abortion terminates the pregnancy, which means that you won’t be pregnant for the full nine months.

Adoption is not treatment for a serious fetal abnormality such as anencephaly (fetus has no brain, hence non-viable). Adoption is not a treatment for cases where a woman is too ill to carry a fetus to term (e.g. serious kidney problems exaggerated by a pregnancy, as it was in the case of Beatriz, or septicemia, as it was in the case of Savita Halappanavar). Adoption still requires women to go through pregnancy, which has its own side effects, and through the process of childbirth.

Hence, abortion and adoption are not equivalent to one another.

We’re well aware of people who say that abortion is immoral and who think that women should be denied choice. Otherwise this series of posts would not exist. Duh. But do the anti-choice people ever consider the fact that maybe women would think of adoption to be even more immoral than abortion?

The Guttmacher Institute did a review on why women have abortions. These women weren’t asked about adoption specifically, but this blurb can be found in the review (search “adoption” in the PDF):

Opinions on adoption. Respondents were not specifically asked about adoption; nevertheless, it came up spontaneously in both parts of the study. While fewer than 1% of women in the quantitative survey volunteered that they would not consider or did not favor having a baby and giving it up for adoption, more than one-third of interview respondents said they had considered adoption and concluded that it was a morally unconscionable option because giving one’s child away is wrong.

Emphasis mine.

Of course, this being an anti-choice propaganda piece, this ignores the fact that one third of women see adoption as immoral, and pushes open adoption, thinking that this would be the solution to all problems.

Going through this piece and doing the research, much of it is accurate. However, there are a few things of note which I’m going to bring up:

“I don’t want to deal with the father or worry about his role in the baby’s life.”

With adoption you can totally separate from your baby’s father and provide a positive father figure for your baby’s future.

Because obviously single parents are unfit to raise kids, amirite?

Your baby’s father could participate in the adoption process, if you agree, and can take part in future communication with the adoptive family you choose, even if you don’t want to stay in touch.

Legally, birthfathers have the same rights as birthmothers. As such, depending from state to state, there are different laws regarding involvement of the father in creating an adoption plan and whether he is required to consent or not.

Most agencies would rather have the father involved in the process, in order to ensure that the father won’t contest the adoption later, and they will do their best to contact the father in order to gain his consent prior to going through with it.

“I can’t tell my family.”

You can make a confidential adoption plan and hide your pregnancy. […] If needed, you can even relocate temporarily to keep your situation private.

Because obviously your parents won’t really notice you wearing extremely baggy clothes for the next couple of months, exhibiting symptoms of pregnancy for nine, and disappearing for a few days without their knowing your whereabouts.

And of course it’ll be easy for you to temporarily relocate if you’re desperate. It’s not like you have school, a job, a family, friends, etc.

In doing the research needed for this article, I found these two resources if you’re planning to put a child up for adoption/adopt a child:

Independent Adoption Center: nonprofit open adoption agency

American Adoptions:
1.800.ADOPTION (1.800.236.7846)

I cannot attest to these adoption agencies, although I presume they’re trustworthy.

Also, if you’re seeking to adopt a child who’s already in the foster care system (there are over 104,000 children already in the system waiting for adoption, and I’m of the belief that all children should be able to have a loving family), here’s a resource:

Adopt US Kids: for people seeking to adopt children already in the system.

If you are choosing to put a child for adoption or seeking to adopt a child yourself, I highly recommend that you contact someone who is knowledgeable about the process: adoption counselors, lawyers, etc. I’m not the person to contact, as I’m a college student.

I wish you good luck.

Much Ado About Abortion: Open Minds and Humanlife Part 7

Today’s topic: how the anti-choice camp uses bad science to imply that there’s a link between abortion and breast cancer. Yay for bad science and fear mongering!

Now, serious question: what would be the means of which an aborted pregnancy will lead to cancer? How would terminating a pregnancy cause mutations in DNA that would break a cell’s mechanisms to not divide out of control?

After all, what cancer is at a fundamental level is really, really screwed up DNA. And the screw up occurs in such a way that these cells will not respond to the body’s mechanisms to control cell division.

So how does abortion (whether medicated or surgical) cause a DNA screw up so bad that the cells will replicate out of control?

Women who experience at least one full term pregnancy in their lifetime develop four types of breast lobules (a lobule is a unit of breast tissue consisting of a milk duct and glands). During adolescence, the majority of lobdules are Type 1 and Type 2, which are immature and cancer susceptible. Throughout the first trimester of pregnancy, the number of Type 1 and Type 2 lobules rapidly increase. As a result, breasts have more sites for cancer to start. In the second trimester, the breast lobdules start maturing into Type 4 lobules, which are cancer resistant. By the end of the third trimester, 85% of the breast has fully matured. Only 13% of the lobules remain immature and cancer-susceptible, leaving fewer opportunities for cancer to start. After birth and weaning, Type 4 lobules regress to Type 3. There is evidence of permanent changes in the genes of Type 3 lobules which provide life-long cancer resistance.

Wait, what? Are they seriously arguing that there’s a special type of cell that is more resistant to DNA mutation, hence more resistant to cancer? And that they’re only produced if you’re pregnant and give birth?

Let’s go back and go over this paragraph bit by bit, because something sound wrong here and I want to find out what.

Women who experience at least one full-term pregnancy in their lifetime develop four types of breast lobules (a lobule is a unit of breast tissue consisting of a milk duct and glands). During adolescence, the majority of lobdules are Type 1 and Type 2, which are immature and cancer susceptible. In the second trimester, the breast lobdules start maturing into Type 4 lobules, which are cancer resistant.

So I guess now I get to talk about boobs?

Okay, to start off with, we’re talking about lobes and lobules. The difference between a lobe and a lobule is that a lobe is a clear anatomical division that we can see without the help of a microscope, whereas the lobule requires one.

The breast has around 15-20 lobes, and in each lobe, we have many lobules. Each lobdule has a milk duct, which is where breast milk is made. These ducts produce milk due to hormonal signals in a positive feedback loop (essentially: baby feeds on breast, hormones say “make more milk!”, breasts make more milk, baby gets milk, baby feeds more until baby is full and happy).

The breast undergoes changes during puberty (thelarche, or the development of the breasts), menstruation (which is why breasts feel more tender and whatnot shortly after one’s period), pregnancy, and menopause. These changes are induced by hormones secreted by the body, and this causes the breast to change in size and shape. Some medications mimic these same hormones, which causes the side effect of large breasts.

During the second and third trimester of pregnancy, hormones in the body jump start the development of the milk duct system that will (if the mother chooses to breastfeed) be used to feed the baby. Some of the changes in the breast include:

  • Larger lobes and alveoli (basically glands) thanks to progesterone.
  • Differentiation of various milk ducts thanks to estrogen.
  • More growth of the alveoli and additional differentiation thanks to prolactin and growth hormone (which also helps to regulate milk production).
  • Oxytocin stimulates the milk ejection reflex (lactation).
  • Additional breast growth — breast, nipple, and areola (the dark area around the nipples) — thanks to human placental lactogen.
  • Other changes, such as higher insulin resistance and whatnot.

In doing the research regarding breasts and lactation and cancer risk, I did find ONE study that discusses lobule type and breast cancer risk: “Lobule Type and Subsequent Breast Cancer Risk: Results from the Nurses’ Health Studies”. This study used the questionnaires from over one hundred thousand nurses health stations and identified 1310 cases of people with benign breast disease (BBD) who developed breast cancer and 5273 controls.

Like I said in the past, I’m a layperson who’s studying for a BS in biochemistry, so while I did read the study in question to see whether the methodology is valid (and it seems like it is), I’m not as trained to read them as someone who has gotten their BS/Masters/PhD.

Anyways, what was their conclusion?

In this established nested case-control study of benign breast disease and breast cancer, women with predominant type 1 and no type 3 lobules had a reduction in breast cancer risk compared to women with all other lobule types, even after adjustment for histologic category of BBD. Some decrease in risk was observed for all categories of BBD, although the stratified analyses were limited by small numbers of cases and controls. These results suggest that having a larger proportion of type 1 lobules and no type 3 lobules may be protective against the development of breast cancer among women who have had BBD, regardless of their histologic category. 

And how did they define the different types?

Type 1 lobules are the least developed and are present in the immature female breast prior to menarche, whereas type 3 lobules are the most fully developed and are usually seen in the breasts of women under hormonal stimulation or during pregnancy. Type 2 lobules evolve from type 1 lobules and are intermediate in their degree of differentiation. The breasts of nulliparous women are composed mainly of type 1 lobules, although occasional types 2 and 3 lobules are present; in contrast, type 3 lobules are the predominant structure in parous women. Type 4 lobules are present only during lactation and then regress back to type 3 lobules.

Long story short, they concluded that among women with benign breast disease, women who have more Type 1 lobules and less Type 3 (i.e. women who have never given birth) were less likely to develop breast cancer.

Uh oh. That’s contrary to the original article’s claim that women who have given birth are less likely to develop breast cancer thanks to more mature lobules. Strike 1?

There is evidence of permanent changes in the genes of Type 3 lobules which provide life-long cancer resistance.

What evidence?

Moving on to the next paragraph:

A premature delivery before 32 weeks doubles the risk of breast cancer because it leaves the breast with more places for cancer to start.

Okay, I decided to Google this exact phrase, to see if I can find a source.

So far I’m only getting anti-choice sites, no source. That’s not a good sign.

On the other hand, I did find that Science Based Medicine did something regarding the abortion/breast cancer link; the conclusion was that there was absolutely no link. (The author of that article is a breast cancer surgeon and does research on breast cancer; he’s much more qualified than me to discuss this topic.)

Also, seriously, this makes NO sense. There’s no such thing as a cancer-proof cell. All cells can screw up and turn cancerous. You’re giving people who have been pregnant false hope.

And you’d think that with all of the differentiation going on, that there might be a even HIGHER chance of cancer. After all, the lobule is becoming more and more specialized. How would they be more cancer-resistant if they’re becoming more and more specialized?

Approximately 90% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester. However, the vast majority of natural miscarriages in the first trimester do not increase the risk of breast cancer. In these cases, pregnancy hormones are lower than those of a normal pregnancy due to either a fetal or an ovarian abnormality.

Wait, so my uterus can tell the future now?

Are You Serious?

Also, as the final nail to the coffin, the American Cancer Society weighed in. Guess what? They concluded that there is absolutely no link between breast cancer and abortion, both spontaneous and induced.

And, of course, if you’re curious, here are the ACTUAL risk-factors for breast cancer, because we need some reality and some actual legit science up in here.

Science: against fear mongering since <year>.

Tomorrow (if I have time for it): why adoption is not a substitute for abortion.