Category Archives: NaturalNews

Chemtrails: Somehow Poisoning Your Super-Algae

From NaturalNews (according to the copyright stuff):

chemtrails contaminating SUPER-ALGAE

Since when did the process of combustion lead to aluminum byproducts?

The mind boggles.


“On the First Day of Christmas, My True Love Gave to Me, A Gangsta Rap Coloring Book. It’s for Kids.” [NaturalNews Mocking]

Screenshot of the video (you can see the time at the bottom). This is a picture, I can't embed videos, do not click. Credit to Youtube

Screenshot of the video (you can see the time at the bottom). The picture quality is not my fault, it’s the video’s quality. This is a picture, I can’t embed videos, do not click. Credit to Youtube

Oh hi! Happy holidays, everyone, and Seasons Greetings!

So the Health Ranger gave us a gift in the form of a video: “Health Ranger Sings the Twelve Days of Christmas”. Even better: he’s singing it in his lab, without lab coat, protective eye wear, and other protective things. Good job!

Some highlights from the video:

  • “On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me two cans of cocaine and a gangsta rap coloring book. It’s Christmas in America.”
  • Apparently Americans don’t drink ice tea (in reference to Ice T in the book).
  • Actually, all of the “oh, I’m going to show the rappers in the coloring book!” that’s present throughout the song.
  • THE AWKWARD SINGING! GAH! Even worse, there’s lines like this:
    “On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me, eight retail sticks (because no one can find a tree anymore and they don’t have backyards and they don’t know how to get their own STICKS!) […]”
  • “It’s like Christmas in Harlem!” Good job Adams, you racist asshole.
  • The tone of condensation.


“I’M TOTES A SCIENTIST NOW!!” or How to Impress People Untrained in Science [NaturalNews mocking]

Mike Adams is showing off his “fancy tech” in a new post on NaturalNews, thinking that having fancy technology a scientist makes.

Hint: it doesn’t.

What you’re looking at in the photo is part of an atomic spectroscopy laboratory with extraordinary capabilities including parts per trillion detection of atomic elements as well as advanced, high-level isotopic ratio analysis capabilities. Somewhere in the background there’s also a collection of Ion-Selective Electrodes with various testing capabilities.

I’m not yet showing you all the instrumentation, but anyone who knows their way around a lab can probably recognize the peri pump in this photo and figure out what it’s attached to. (Hint: It’s worth more than a Lamborghini…)

Wow, I’m supposed to be impressed that you spent a few hundred thousand dollars on a spectrometer? Color me unimpressed.

The red object on the workbench with the open lid is a standard centrifuge. This one happens to be capable of 10,000G.

Oooh, a desktop centrifuge! It’s not like other laboratories have this, right????

The diagram in the center of the board is a simple drawing of an ion multiplier, which is one of the components used in my food science research.

And what are you researching, exactly?

The glasses on my head are lab safety glasses. I’m also wearing protective gloves, but you can’t see them in the photo. Unwisely, I sometimes conduct R&D in the lab wearing a short-sleeved shirt instead of a long-sleeved lab coat. (I’ve decided the lab coat is just too cumbersome…)

You know you’re a real scientist when you say “screw it, I’mma go COMMANDO in a LAB FULL OF FREAKING CHEMICALS, MANY OF WHICH THAT CAN BURN MY SKIN OFF!”. </sarcasm>

The important thing to note here is that this lab is not theater. This isn’t a green screen setup, and it’s not a bunch of fake props. In fact, at the moment this photo was taken, some of the systems in the background were actually running.

“Dudes, this lab is totes legit! Really! See, some of them actually work and actually do things, see?”

Throughout 2013, I’ve been heavily engaged in high-level analytical chemistry and atomic spectroscopy training and research. On January 7, 2014, I will begin announcing a series of food science breakthroughs that, as promised, will reshape the food industry and absolutely revolutionize personal health. Based on what we are about to announce, every individual who seeks outstanding health, amazing cognitive function, healthy offspring, longevity and freedom from chronic disease will now have a powerful, transformative new science-based paradigm from which to accomplish those goals with clarity and consistency.

This research completes my own transition from activist to scientist, and it also signifies a radical reshaping of the editorial focus of onto transformative solutions for personal and planetary health.

“High level”? “Transformative”? “Breakthroughs”? “Reshape the food industry and revolutionize personal health”?

Is this an advertisement or an article? And why are we supposed to be impressed about the fact that it’s “high level” (in mother freaking BOLD)?

I think I can wait a month to see what happens next.

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.


I’m supposed to be doing homework at the moment, but I just needed to post this.

Okay, so there is this “documentary” about GMOs made by anti-GMO groups called Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs. I’m probably going to listen to this video while I struggle with nuclear chemistry, but there’s this quote that I HAVE to show you.

“And of course what happens is when their genes are changed, our genes are changed by consuming them, just as the super weeds and the super bugs are genetically altered by consuming them. The bug eats the plant, its genes change. The animal eats the plant, its genes change. We eat the animal or the plant, our genes change. Our babies’ genes change and the change is permanent.”

(Clip; this is about 20 minutes into the original documentary.)


Are you serious?

You have GOT to be kidding—nope, wait, you’re not.

Someone should TOTALLY let me know if after eating some spinach whether we get the ability to photosynthesize.

Anti-GMO groups: where basic science and common sense are not allowed.

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!



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.

Bleach Your Cancer Away with Hydrogen Peroxide! (NaturalNews Mocking)

No really. NaturalNews is seriously suggesting that we should bleach cancer away with a 35% solution of hydrogen peroxide.

What the hell? I’d use something stronger, except for the fact that the hydrogen peroxide is sanitizing my potty mouth.


Take deep breaths, deep, deep breaths.




Okay. let’s just mock this thing, because WTF?

Cancer is dangerous.

Well yeah, metastatic disease is quite terrible and can kill you if it goes too far out. Duh?

Don’t flirt with disaster.

How the hell do you flirt with a cancer cell?

Don’t eat it and don’t go near it.

Um, no one’s telling you to go eat a Petri dish full of HeLa cells.

Don’t drink it.

How do you drink cancer cells? I highly doubt that you can make a cancer smoothie, since the blades can easily chop up the cellular membranes of the cells. And you can’t really make a soup out of it, since the heat of the boiling water will kill it.

Don’t put it on your skin.

Why are you putting Petri dish medium on your skin?

Yes, this is a warning not to put cancer on or inside your body.

Because we all have access to Petri dishes full of cancer cells.

Cancer is in GMO pesticide DNA seed designs and the treatments used on vegetables and fruit.

We inject Petri dish medium filled with cancer cells into DNA? How does that work?

Also, since I’m presuming that they’re discussing Bt toxin. Bt toxin is highly specific and only affects specific receptors located in the GI tract in certain insects. Furthermore, Bt toxins are used in organic farming, as it is a natural pesticide, and has been used in organic farming for five decades.

In addition, you do realize that you’re supposed to wash fruits and vegetables before you consume them, right? If you wash them well (which isn’t exactly hard), there won’t BE any residue on your fresh fruits and veggies.

Toxicity is in the dose, people.

Cancer is in sun block lotions full of toxins that hold in your sweat and block out the vitamin D you would normally get from the sun.

Wait, since when did we create a sunblock that was impervious to sweat? Aren’t you supposed to reapply every few hours because the sunblock sweats off?

And aren’t foods fortified nowadays so that we get Vitamin D in our diets? I mean, even the Skin Cancer Foundation recommends AGAINST walking around in the sun without sunblock just for Vitamin D, and states that there is no evidence that we’re lacking in Vitamin D, let alone that additional Vitamin D will prevent against cancer (among other things).

Also, uh, in case you forgot, UV rays freaking cause skin cancer, which is why they ask us to use sunblock in the first place.

Cancer is in cosmetics, makeup, soaps, toothpaste and shampoos.

Because we sneakily put in HeLa cells during the manufacturing process.

Cancer may be lurking in your refrigerator, your pantry and in your medicine cabinet […]

Why are you hoarding Petri dishes of cancer cells in your house?

Cancer has a rival that destroys it like an M-60 leveling a field of enemy soldiers. It’s called “hydrogen peroxide,” […]

Isn’t that the same stuff that Mother used to pour onto my cuts when I hurt myself? Stun like hell, that.

[…] and the “lame-stream,” mainstream media will tell you how “dangerous” it is at 35%,

Uh, because it is?

People have used hydrogen peroxide to make bombs. We can use it to power rockets. We bleach wood pulp, manufacture bleach, disinfect stuff, and make glow sticks out of the stuff. And you want us to drink this stuff?

What are you, high?

[…] but they won’t tell you that you can drip a couple drops in a glass of water each day and end cancer.

Because drinking what is essentially bleach is going to end well.

Cancer thrives in an acid-heavy system, […]

[citation needed]

Also, seriously, you won’t die of acidosis before then?

The heart and brain struggle to filter out the toxins […]

Because the heart and the brain are the ones in charge of breaking down toxins, and not the liver. Geez, if you can’t even your basic anatomy right, how the hell do you even think you’re qualified to give ANY medical advice, whatsoever?

This is why the doctors and oncologists tell chemo patients not to eat alkalizing foods like kale, because it will “interfere with the chemotherapy.”

Say what now? Doctors don’t tell you to eat kale?

Most cancer patients die as a result of the chemotherapy and radiation damage to their non-cancerous cells.

[citation SORELY needed]

In other words, your good cells that are trying to help your body beat cancer are deprived of oxygen also, leading to new cancers and often death within 5 years.

Because cancer happens due to lack of oxygen, and not screwed up DNA.

All pathogens, viruses, and parasites are anaerobic. They […] cannot survive with an abundance of oxygen

Some examples of pathogens that are facultative anaerobic (as in they can live with or without oxygen):

Yeah, so it really depends on what kind of anaerobic we’re talking about.

What should you do, whether you have cancer or not? Alkalize your body, that’s what.

Because our body totally thrives at a pH over 7.5, and won’t accidentally kill us.

Also, isn’t hydrogen peroxide, like, slightly acidic?

It has been clinically demonstrated that the spread or metastatis of cancer is “inversely proportional to the amount of oxygen around the cancer cells.”

[citation needed that’s not NaturalNews]

Hydrogen peroxide kills cancer cells, because cancer cells do not have the mechanism to break down the hydrogen peroxide and stop it from doing its work.

[citation needed]

The key to curing cancer with hydrogen peroxide is getting ENOUGH hydrogen peroxide INSIDE the cancer cells.

From the American Cancer Society:

According to a review article in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, attempts to treat patients by injecting hydrogen peroxide directly into solid tumors or into the blood system have generally been ineffective.

So how do you think consuming hydrogen peroxide, which is much less exact compared to direct injection, would do? Also, how would hydrogen peroxide be smart enough to know to just go to that cancer cell, and not go to some healthy cell?

Proteolytic enzymes, also called pancreatic enzymes, literally cut apart the thick protein coating that covers cancer cells, so the immune system can recognize the cells as cancerous.

This is on so many different levels of wrong that it’s not even wrong anymore.

That’s how wrong this statement is.

I will just leave this link right here.

Nobel prize winner Dr. Otto Warburg demonstrated OVER 50 YEARS AGO the basic difference between normal cells and cancer cells. Both derive energy from glucose, but the normal cell requires oxygen to combine with the glucose, while cancer cells break down glucose without oxygen, yielding only about 1/15 of the energy per glucose molecule that a normal cell produces.

Because normal human cells don’t go through anaerobic respiration.

Hint: they do.

Hydrogen peroxide and several other oxygen therapies are proven to be safe and effective. Pay attention to what you buy though, because 35% food grade hydrogen peroxide is the only grade recommended for internal use.

Because the FDA actually wanted to you consume bleach.

Food grade hydrogen peroxide is approved for cleaning work surfaces, and it has to completely decompose into hydrogen and oxygen before you can actually use said surface to prepare food. IT IS NOT TO BE CONSUMED.

Some individuals add a cup of 35% food grade hydrogen peroxide to a bathtub of warm water and soak for 20 to 30 minutes. The hydrogen peroxide is absorbed through the skin, which is your largest organ. Others drink a glass of water with several drops of food or reagent grade hydrogen peroxide.

Side effects of drinking hydrogen peroxide include

  • vomiting
  • severe burns in your throat and stomach
  • trouble breathing
  • blindness
  • stroke
  • death

Side effects of bathing in hydrogen peroxide include

  • bleached skin
  • blistering
  • burns
  • serious breathing problems from breathing in the vapors


Let me repeat this one more time: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. EVER.


Holy Fruit! The Curious Case of Sea Buckthorn Berry

I think I need a NaturalNews mocking tag, given that it’s where I’m getting a lot of my material from nowadays.

*makes NaturalNews category*

Eh, good enough.

Anyways! Today, for you guys, we have the newest panacea against cancer, memory loss, and diabetes, among others. Let us get started!

With environmental pollutants, radiation, stress and chemicals bombarding us at every turn, […]

Uh, duh? If the sun’s hitting your skin, you’re getting radiation. If you’re inside of your house, you’re getting radiation. And if you’re alive, you’re surrounded by and consuming chemicals all day long.

One of the most dangerous is dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide has been consumed by those who commit serious crimes such as murder, and has been linked to over 4,000 deaths a year!


[S]imply consuming a clean diet isn’t enough to ensure health – additional fortification with nutrient-dense superfoods is often required to avoid serious disease and illness.

If you’re in the developed world, you really don’t need “nutrient-dense superfoods”. Most of us can get necessary nutrients in our daily diet without really trying. If you did happen to have a deficiency (or if you have a special dietary regimen that lacks certain vitamins/minerals, e.g. vegan diets), your doctor should recommend some. Furthermore, there’s such thing as toxicity due to overdosing on vitamins/minerals. Google “iron toxicity” if you don’t believe me.

Luckily, a bright orange Himalayan berry can tackle many of our modern health issues and encourage a robust future.

Berries can get rid of cancer and AIDS?

Sea buckthorn fruit is loaded with over 190 bioactive compounds, including omega-3 and omega-7 fatty acids – the latter is a rare fat in the plant kingdom which is beneficial for weight loss and healing the gastrointestinal tract. The berry is considered one of the world’s most balanced fruits, providing powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory compounds. Rich in beta-carotene, flavonoids and vitamins C, D, E and K, sea buckthorn also contains a substantial complex of B vitamins and 20 minerals. Moreover, it supplies between 4-100 times more vitamin C than any other fruit or vegetable. With such an impressive nutritional profile, it’s no wonder the fruit has long been considered a healing treasure in the mountainous Himalayan regions in which it grows.

Some things:

  1. You can get omega-3 and omega-7 in fish. It’s probably cheaper too.
  2. Source for omega-7 being “beneficial for weight loss and healing the gastrointestinal tract”, plox.
  3. Who’s calling the sea buckthorn berry “one of the world’s most balanced fruits”, and why should one person’s claim automatically make it fact?
  4. Our bodies can make Vitamin D (sun) and Vitamin K (E. coli in our gut) on our own. Why do we need more of it? Also, isn’t Vitamin D fat soluble?
  5. Why would we need that much Vitamin C? You do realize that any additional Vitamin C that we consume and that isn’t needed is urinated out daily, right?
  6. Who considers the fruit to be a “healing treasure”? And why should we accept your appeal to tradition claim?

Inquiring minds want to know!

A study published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition discovered the berry reduced post-meal blood sugar spikes. The researchers believe sea buckthorn is beneficial in keeping blood sugar levels stable and protecting against type 2 diabetes.

I believe this is the study in question.

Ten participants and four meals? Really? That’s a large enough sample size and a large enough trial period to say “yep, prevents type 2 diabetes, done!”?

Color me unimpressed.

The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry reports that participants who took sea buckthorn oil supplements daily over the course of four months experienced significant improvement in their atopic dermatitis (a form of eczema).

Study in question, only sixteen participants.

Similarly, a study in Food and Chemical Toxicology found sea buckthorn oil applied topically to burn wounds in rats markedly accelerated healing.

Study in question, seven days, no idea on how many rats were involved.

And a review published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology states:

“Sea buckthorn has been scientifically analyzed and many of its traditional uses have been established using several biochemical and pharmacological studies. Various pharmacological activities such as cytoprotective, anti-stress, immunomodulatory, hepatoprotective, radioprotective, anti-atherogenic, anti-tumor, anti-microbial and tissue regeneration have been reported.”

Study in question, this looks like a systematic review, and I don’t know what studies they used to conduct this review.

Also, this is probably not really that worthy to note, but the systematic review was done in India, and I’m not sure if India’s known for its high quality of studies as a whole, whether medical or whatnot.

Sea buckthorn is also helpful for:

  • Arthritis
  • High blood pressure
  • Pain and inflammation
  • Rosacea
  • Mental clarity and memory
  • Endurance
  • Vision
  • Healthy skin and hair
  • Respiratory function

[citations sorely needed]

Preferably one with at least 100 subjects, for example, and a long trial period.

Also, seriously, how bad can you be if you think that a study with less than twenty participants is a large enough sample size to proclaim health benefits from some random berry, but cry fowl when over 600+ independent studies show that GMOs are perfectly safe and won’t kill us?

I guess all of that confirmation bias gets to your head.