Mike Adams Might be a Liar

Mike Adams , aka Health Ranger posted, what in my opinion is, an absurd rant on his blog.

I'm going to disect his rant so you can see just how absurd he, or at least his rant is.

Quoting from his "NaturalNews"

In the world of medicine, "skeptics" claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth.

Not true.  However, we sometimes feel that way.  Mike Adams makes this fraudulent claim because he doesn't like that some skeptics are calling him out as a fraud.  We have evidence on our side that what he is dishing out is false.  I don't know whether he knows that his health advice is often bad.  But it is.

Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist.

Not true.  Only the purveyors of known misinformation are quacks.  The evidence is readily available, so there is no excuse for Mike Adams to not know much of what he touts is useless and sometimes even harmful.  He apparently chooses to not believe the evidence before him.

Briefly stated, "skeptics" are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy.

True, actually.  Vaccines, mammograms, many pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy have proven effective.  Not all pharmaceuticals are good, and all courses of medication should be considered carefully before use.  That said, the positive effects from the use of many vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and chemotherapy far outweigh the negative effects.

They are opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch.

Partially true.  Nutritional supplements have a valid place in the diets for many people.  Herbal medicine that has proven effective is called medicine.  Chiropractic, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer, and therapeutic touch, however, have not proven effective, and in some cases may be harmful.  Here's the thing, there is no such thing as energy therapy.  There is a sham treatment that the quacks that practice it call energy therapy.  Homeopathy has absolutely no evidence that it's any more effective than taking sugar as medicine.  Chiropractic has very limited useful applications, and prayer is just silly and doesn't work at all, and the people that know they are being prayed for may actually do worse.  Message does have a use, but not for the curing of disease.  Therapeutic touch is just as silly as prayer.

More after the break

But there's much more that you need to know about "skeptics."

He is apparently setting you up for more lies.

As you'll see below, they themselves admit they have no consciousness and that there is no such thing as a soul, a spirit or a higher power.

The bit about there being no soul, spirit or higher power is sometimes true.  Many skeptics are atheists and really do hold such opinions.  However, not having a conscience or consciousness is obviously hyperbole, or perhaps he is outright lying, I can't tell.  Skeptics are every bit as conscious as any person, and certainly have as good a moral conscience as anyone.  We don't rely on an imaginary deity to provide our moral compass but have actually developed one the same way as everyone else: from our parents, our friends, and our society.  There is no god, so there can be no god given morals.  Even the religious do not have god given morals - they are derived from the laws of men, from interactions with other people - families and friends, teachers and such.

There is no life after death.

True.  We do not believe there is life after death.  This one, precious life is all we get.  It's one time around and that's it.  We better get it right this time around, there is no second chance.

In fact, there's not much life in life when you're a skeptic.

Not true.  Every second is precious when you realize those seconds are the only ones you'll ever get.  Once you've wasted your life and you die, then you could say there isn't much life in the afterlife.

What skeptics really believe

Here he is apparently setting you up for more lies.

I thought it would be interesting to find out exactly what "skeptics" actually believe, so I did a little research and pulled this information from various "skeptic" websites.

Actually, what he is about to present appears to have been made up entirely from his own mind, from whole cloth and without reference to any real skeptical websites.

What I found will make you crack up laughing so hard that your abs will be sore for a week.

You should be warned that he has misrepresented the skeptical positions that follow, so any laughter or derision should be directed at Mr. Adams.

Take a look...

Actually, this is good advice, but don't look only at what he writes, take a real look at real skeptical websites.  Be prepared, however, for many, nothing is sacred, and that will include your god.

• Skeptics believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective (even if they've never been tested),

Not true.  Not in the least.  Yes, many vaccines are safe.  However, any claim that we uncritically accept all vaccines as safe must be a bald face lie.  We accept those that have been proven safe.  The others we demand they be tested and proven safe before general use.

that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will,

Not true.  No person should be vaccinated against their will.  If they work in positions where they may infect vulnerable people (such as me), however, then I suggest they rethink their career choice.  Also, not every person can safely receive vaccinations.  These people quite obviously should not receive vaccinations.  The CDC has explicit guidelines about this and they give several examples of who should not receive various vaccinations.

and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given.

Not true.  Not even Dr. Offit has said such a thing.  However, the implication that our current schedule of vaccinations is close to any kind of risky level is false.  The current schedule for all vaccinations a person would receive in their entire lifetimes does not present even as much exposure to risk as an infant receives in a day or two of crawling around on a scrupulously clean floor.  What a vaccine does is target very specific and dangerous diseases to build the human immune systems defenses against.  The vast majority of what that infant meets in their day to day play on the floor is benign, and much of what isn't, even an infant can deal with.  Vaccines provide protection against diseases that have been proven to cause harm.  But the idea that skeptics think that the human could receive unlimited exposure is ludicrous - and likely a lie.

So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and "good for your health."

Not true.  No skeptic I know holds such beliefs. 

• Skeptics believe that fluoride chemicals derived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health.

Do you know where that malicious chemical, di-hydrogen monoxide, that you come in to daily contact comes from?  The original source of the fluoride is nearly irrelevant as by the time it's put in your drinking water and tooth paste, it has been purified and controlled so that all previous exposures are moot.

They're so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into the water supply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.

Actually, very careful studies have been done to understand just what levels are appropriate.  The levels are amazingly tiny.  They are intended to provide the bare minimum necessary to provide benefit.  Anyone telling you otherwise likely has a wide range of phony health products they wish to sell you that are even more harmful.  But they try to scare you about what "big science" is doing so that they seem reasonable in comparison.  They are not.

• Skeptics believe that many six-month-old infants need antidepressant drugs.

He's going to have to dredge up references for this - I don't believe that for a minute.  There is no reason to give antidepressants to infants.  He's likely lying about this.  Very likely.

In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more -- simultaneously!

Absolute malarkey.  No sane person, no rational person, no scientifically based person, would hold such an opinion!  He has to be so lying about this that I'm surprised his heart didn't explode.  Any competent doctor will want to know all of the drugs you are taking so that they can avoid prescribing more than you can safely have administered, and avoid any that are contradictory.  In fact, anyone that reads that claim by Mr. Adams should see that on the face of it this cannot be true.  He must be lying.

• Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines.

Either Mike Adams has no clue about how vaccines work or he is lying his pants off.  The way a vaccine works is by triggering that very human immune system Mr. Adams claims we don't believe exists into building an immunity.  The point of the vaccine is to protect those with a weak immune system (like me), the very young, and the very old.  Also, many of the diseases we are protecting against are devastating even when they don't kill you.  Polio is horrible.  Measles, Mumps, and Rubella can have dire effects as well.  We vaccinate against these because they have a long and well documented history of causing misery.  Any claims that the healthy have nothing to fear is a bald falsehood.

• Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis.

Not true.  Well, for some women, pregnancy and childbirth can be dangerous - there are many well documented cases in most family trees of family members dying in childbirth.  However, pregnancy is an essential part of being human, of maintaining the species.  We just think it's safer if someone competent is involved to protect both the woman and the fetus.

(They are opponents of natural childbirth.)

Not true.  However, we do believe that assisted childbirth and even surgical delivery are valid options if they become necessary.

• Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis.

Hypnosis is a well documented state of heightened suggestibility.  However, it is nothing more than that. 

This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences.

I bet Mr. Adams has no references to prove this.  In fact, I'd suggest that he is the more susceptible.  We recognize mainstream influences for what they are and the effects they have on us.  What is truly sad is how many people fall for Mr. Adams health claims with no proof or evidence to back them up.  They take the claims entirely on faith.  That is pure hypnosis.

• Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness.

Not true.  Many skeptics don't believe in free will - but that is not a uniform opinion.  Define what you consider human consciousness and I'll tell you if I believe that definition.  I'll tell you what I consider it.  Human consciousness is the ability of a human to consider their actions, to consider the consequences, the knowledge that we will one day die, and in the case of a skeptic, that once we are dead, we are done.  Consciousness is that part of our mind that processes our options and supplies our choices.  We very much believe in human consciousness and wish more humans would use theirs.

They do not believe in the mind;

Not true.  However, we do not believe in duality.  We believe that the mind is an emergent property of and stems from the human brain.

only in the physical brain.

Not true.  that would be like believing in only the CPU and not the software.

In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will,

Not true.  At least not for all skeptics.  In fact, the worst case, they consider themselves (and you) mindful automatons, and that free will is an illusion.  That is hardly a universal belief.  I believe it is true there are a great many things we don't have control over in our lives.  I cannot choose to live without food, for example.  Why then, would it be hard to believe that there are some mental responses we do not have control over.  If I push you out of a perfectly good airplane at 6000 feet and you've never sky dived before, there is a very, very high likelihood you will let out a scream - and you'll have no control over that.  There are other things, like what will I wear today, where you do have a choice, but how do you make that choice?  How do you know that given that exact moment all over again you could make a different choice with all else being the same.  That is what those skeptics that do not believe we have free will mean.  However, I don't think all skeptics are on board with that.

no soul

True.  Many skeptics, though I'm sure there are some that might disagree, do not believe in the soul.  What proof do you have that you have one?  Why can't what ever it is you attribute to your soul actually be your mind.  Because that's where I attribute any such things that I suspect people consider soul.

and no consciousness whatsoever.

Not true, as I've already noted.

• Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).

Um, how do you classify a dead food?  Very much all food that arrives on my table is dead by the time it gets there.  Even the vegetables, usually.  I prefer mine raw.  Should I eat the plants while they are still on the stalk, then?  That is the only time I'd consider them still alive.  Yes, I know, I'm carrying this a bit too far, I know perfectly well what he really means.  And if he believes in supplements, then he believes in dead food.  Period.  How do you think they make the supplements.

• Skeptics believe that pesticides on the crops are safe,

True to a degree.  However, we also admit that there are consequences to using pesticides.  The idea is to use only as much of something as needed and no more.  Western farming is amazing in its ability to produce crops because of pesticide.  That doesn't mean there aren't downsides, too.  This isn't a black and white, one side is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong issue.  There is most definitely a space between.  If you want to feed the teaming billions of people on this planet, you're going to have to deal with pesticides.  Or die of starvation.

genetically modified foods are safe,

The GM foods that have been tested and proven safe, yes; the others, no.  We do not prejudge our science, but actually wait for the results.  In this case, for most GM foods, the results are in, and the foods are as safe as the non-GM foods.  Also, just as a side note, humans have been engineering their food for centuries.  Only now can we do so with accuracy and precision.

and that any chemical food additive approved by the FDA is also safe.

True.  Here's the funny thing, the FDA says they are safe, for the most part, because the additives have not been shown to be unsafe.  However, we reserve the right to change our minds should we find evidence to prove otherwise.  You'll note that the FDA has prevented things it considers unsafe from being labeled safe.  And as a side note, most health supplements such as those pushed by Mr. Adams have bypassed FDA approval and are sold regardless.  I'd be worried about that if I were you.  They aren't safe just because they are natural, or have you never heard of natural poisons.

There is no advantage to buying organic food, they claim.

There is mixed science on this.  Many organic foods have absolutely no additional nutritional benefits compared to foods that are grown any other way.  They also tend to be more expensive and therefore harder for the poor to afford, and also require more land and more resources to produce (that is, they are less green - irony, that).

• Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration.

Not true. At least, not the way he means it. Hydration is life.  Without hydration, you have no life.  Nearly every process in the body requires water.

Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).

Not true.  Water is far from inert.  It is THE universal solvent.  That is light-eons away from inert.  However, a pure sample of H20 is a pure sample of H20 regardless where it came from.  But!!!  The water in a natural spring and the water in your toilet are far from pure.  Therefore, at that point, they are far from identical.  And... I should note, most water around the world that finds itself in a toilet likely started out in a spring, and the water in spring may have passed through a toilet or two during it's existence.

• Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert,

Not true.  Mr. Adams would have to be functionally brain dead to honestly believe any skeptic believes that.  They only conclusion I can draw is he is purposely lying.  There can be no web site from any skeptic anywhere in the world that he could hold up as representative of skeptics in general to make such a statement.  It must be a lie, a purposeful lie.

having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking...)

Not true.  Mr. Adams' intellectual position is breathtaking if he expects anyone to believe this.  What manner of dishonesty can have come over Mr. Adams to make such a claim.

In summary, for the vast majority of Mr. Adams claims there can be no way he "did a little research and pulled this information from various "skeptic" websites".  I can only conclude the entire rant was a lie, fabricated expressly for painting skeptics in a libelous light, to slander and purposely malign skeptics with malicious intent.