-26 votes

It takes one to know one- Mike Adams calls Lance Armstrong a "psychopathic liar"

I never thought I would post anything written by Mike Adams, who I have been trying to expose to the DailyPaul as a pseudoscience fraud and alarmist snake-oil salesman, but his latest rant is so hilariously hypocritical that I couldn't resist.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037650_Lance_Armstrong_psychopath...

It seems that Mike Adams, in his angry rant against Lance Armstrong, has inadvertently written his own biography. There is a "mountain of convincing evidence" demonstrating many of the claims on NaturalNews as fraudulent (here's a sample)

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/mike-adams-on-...

and another

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2010/02/mumps-new-jersey-...

but this is not the concentration of this post. My question is- why does Mike Adam's care so much about this Lance Armstrong incident? Why he so concerned with "doping?" Does it conflict with his completely FICTITIOUS 'natural is best' fantasy? Does he hate in Lance Armstrong what he sees in himself? (Hey this kind of speculation is fun, I see why people like it!) Is he mad that Lance Armstrong cured his cancer with chemotherapy? Why would he give a crap about any of this?

Personally I think the obsession with preventing the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is group insanity. Sports officials and natural-living nuts are acting like crazed witch hunters trying to make a demon out of every athlete in their pointless exercise to arbitrarily 'clean' up sports. They are even retroactively changing the record books, which to me is laughably ridiculous. This crazed mindset has nothing to do with sport and everything to do with political correctness and superstition. Anti-doping laws don't make sports more fair! After all, some people are born with superior genes to other people. That's not fair. Some people also work harder than other people. That's not fair. Some people have access to better diets and better physical training resources. That's not fair either.

Doing everything you can to win while staying in the established rules to find out who is the best is the whole point of sports. There is no sport in the world that has anti-drug policy as part of the rules. These anti-drug policies were made up by governing bodies who took control over these sports. Using performance enhancing drugs is not cheating and it is not wrong. Should we retroactively retract Nobel Prizes because the recipient used drugs during the discovery? Should we strip the medals of soldiers because they used a stimulant in battle? Should we throw out the highest score on an exam in medical school because the student drank caffeine while studying?

Why should Lance Armstrong be demonized?

But I digressed. The point is that Mike Adam's latest rant against lying and 'doping' is a perfect reflection of his own hypocrisy. It seems he gets very offended when 'artificial' drugs are used to become a world champion against the 'natural' athletes. It seems he despises people who practice medicine differently from his pseudoscience regiment. And it seems he is not too fond of other people lying for publicity and wealth.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I was

I was about to praise this post because I thought he was talking about Mike Adams, the former politician from California, but now I can't. In fact, I had no idea who 'this' Mike Adams was until I read this post. Therefore, I cannot state any opinion on this particular person until I learn more about him, but from what I know so far, he seems like a good guy.

I like Mike Adams..

I think his websites are one of the best resources for alternative health.
EOM.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

So what is a hero?

A hero is someone you can count on to be honest, courageous, to have bravery, endurance and humbleness. This person will never compromise their principles and they will stay the course even if they do not win the race. They stay true to what is right and honorable, and they never cheat to win!

Add your own heroes to the list:
Ron Paul, Nigel Farage, Jesus, Gandhi, ...
"with great power comes great responsibility" - who said that?

Lance Armstrong used to be on the hero list and he played the part well.
Too bad if all that he is accused of is true, because that makes him the perfect "poster child" for the bankers and corporate America. He fits right in with the banksters, Romney, Obama, Rothschild, the FED, and all those who will do anything for power, control, ego, appearances, profit, and the AGENDA.

I agree with everything you said

And voted you up. But whether Armstrong cheated with steroids or not, it seems silly to me that people would classify a guy who rides a bicycle for a living as a hero...or a guy who shoots hoops or kicks a soccer ball or a football. I'm not referring to you personally, of course, but our society in general. imho, the title of hero should be reserved for people who act very courageously for some human good or another, like freedom or truth or saving lives. I would add to your list Peter Duesberg and Stanislaw Burzynski for going against establishment medicine in an effort to save lives and any soldier that's actually fought in defense of his country (as opposed to those who fight wars of agression for the establishment). Oh, and the soldiers who've come to terms with the fact that most US wars are aggressive and either refuse to deploy and fight in them, or now speak out against them.

Exactly.

Exactly. Well said.

Sports "starts" are not hero's. They're on MSM all the time and are paid ridiculous amounts.

There only value is the ability to distract and promote perpetual adolescence.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

So the loudest proponent of AIDS denialism is a hero?

And people who kill are heroes? What about a soldier who is defending his country but shoots a guy when he could have captured as a POW. Is he a hero? I'm no pacificist, but this comment is riddled with hypocrisy.

Peter Duesberg, by the way, has been debunked by thousands of scientists over and over again. He has been caught cherry picking data and doing dishonest research. That's your hero, huh?

No wonder I am getting downvotes for this post.

People who label other people "denialists"

Are usually promoting (or protecting) an agenda rather than seeking scientific truth. A good example is the pseudo-science pushers who invented the term "global warming denialists" to vilify anyone and everyone (including reputable scientists) who disagree with them. People also associate "denier" and "denialist" with "Holocaust deniers," a good method to smear someone on a subconscious level.

Duesberg doesn't "deny" AIDS, he disagrees with the establishment HIV/AIDS theory. I'm guessing that you've never read Duesberg's book "Inventing the AIDS Virus," as no one I've ever come across who smears Duesberg and his HIV/AIDS research has. If you're going to critique Duesberg and his professional opinion on AIDS, you need to read the book FIRST.

No one has proven Duesberg wrong. More and more scientists have come around to admitting that Duesberg was either totally or partially correct. Well, the honest ones, anyway. So many scientists are on the payroll of either the govt. or some corporation or other that it's difficult to get an honest evaluation of what the scientific community really thinks about anything.

I hope you read Duesberg's book and become better informed on the AIDS issue.

Duesberg is easily proven wrong

One of his claims is that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use. This not only has no plausible mechanism, as there are hundreds of psychoactive drugs recreationally and practically all of them have a different mechanism. Yet they all somehow correlate to AIDS? Plus 100s of millions of people recreationally use drugs and never develop AIDS.

He tried to blame alklyl nitrites as the cause. Well it is common in the gay community to inhale poppers during sex. This is called a confounding variable. I have inhaled alkyl nitrites. I do not have AIDS. Neither do any of the straight people who I know have done it. None of us have HIV, either.

One of my gay friends has HIV. He got it from one of his boyfriends, who now has AIDS.

Look Missy, just because a scientist bucks the system does not make him correct. Just because it is an alternative viewpoint does not make it correct. Sometimes people are just plain wrong. Has Duesberg made good points about retroviruses and cancer? Yes. Has he made good points about HIV? NO.

Like I said

you need to read the book. Because the points you made are strawmen which you'd know better than to use if you'd actually read his book and understood what he actually says.

Do you know how people are actually diagnosed as having AIDS? By identification of one or more old diseases that fall under the long menu of "AIDS dideases," such as pneumonia, TB, Kaposi sarcoma, muscle atrophy, etc., etc. Of course not everyone who mainlines heroine or smokes crack or inhales poppers gets AIDS. But those heavy drug users who've abused these drugs over a long period of time often do develope one or more of the above dieases: poppers=kaposi sarcoma (KS actually appears as a side effect of amyl nitrate inhalers in the PDR), mainlining heroine=TB, smoking crack=pneumonia (as already stated, in many hardcore users over long periods of time). People diagnosed with one or more of these old diseases are often diagnosed with AIDS even if they test negative for HIV, and are put on highly toxic pharmaceuticals like AZT (which by itself, causes AIDS -- see this chapter from Duesberg's book: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pdazt.htm).

Just because a scientist "bucks the system" doesn't make him incorrect either. Consider Duesberg's reputation and ask yourself why a brilliant scientist like him would be willing to lose research grants and being smeared throughout the establishment scientific community over this issue. Also, consider how people like Duesberg can be singled out as an example to keep other scientists in line. It's an old tactic that works well, unfortunately.

Read the book.

Thanks! Agree with your

reasoning and like the heroes you mentioned. Normally I do not regard athletes as heroes.

I think Lance Armstrong COULD have been a hero if he had stayed honest, stood for freedom and truth, exhibited extraordinary human qualities that inspired others, and stayed true to those qualities as Ron Paul has done.

Winning a race or kicking a ball is NOT inspiring. It is extraordinary human qualities that inspire, and that can be in any walk of life, even a bike rider.

What you said here is true: "hero should be reserved for people who act very courageously for some human good or another, like freedom or truth"

He never failed a drug test

He did not cheat. If Lance Armstrong was a hero before the allegations and the public shunning, he is still one now.

Who do you think is behind the anti-doping obsession? The MAINSTREAM MEDIA. The United States government is also highly involved. How many pro-athletes have had to tetify in front of Congress for taking drugs that are found naturally in our bodies? How many laws have been passed that interfere with drugs and sport? I know of at least two federal laws. Plus we have the ASDA, a "private" agency that is functioning as a pseudogovernment with the blessing of Congress. They are trying to prosecute Armstrong and other athletes in Federal courts.

Went seeking information about him passing the drug tests.

This is a long read but very informative. I would love to still believe Armstrong is an extraordinary human being of courage, honor, and integrity. He cannot win back the respect and hero status that he has lost. I think he has been blood doping for a long time, and encouraged his teams to do the same.

The following article explains how to avoid getting caught. Sorry, you will never convince me that taking any kind of drug is a good idea, and winning a race is a poor reason for doing it, or was it for the money? I guess it comes down to the $$$ millions.

Seven tricks cyclists use to cheat drug tests
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/seven-tric...

Substances that occurr normally in the body are found

in controlled and balanced amounts. Too much testosterone will eventually create illness and death. The body is designed to balance itself beautifully, requiring only clean food, water, and air. So you can mess with the balance for a while to make yourself appear the "hulk" or some super athlete, but in the end it will kill you.

Sports are supposed to be about the body being at its most fit level without enhancements. There are drugs that will give a temporary burst of energy, but that is short lived and it creates an advantage in that ONE athlete who takes the substance.

The other athletes will lose to this guy because they do no take that drug. The other athletes in the end have to take the drug to beat the guy who is on drugs and always wins. It becomes a tangled web of DECEIT, all based on lies and trickery. Let there be some honesty left in this world!

You know what kills? Living.

In fact, not taking steroids will kill you. The greatest natural diet imaginable will kill you. Everything you do will kill you. So please stop with the scare tactics.

Your theory about only requiring "clean food, water, and air" is very lovely, but guess what, SHIT HAPPENS. Genetics and the surrounding environment can and do interfere with the mechanisms necessary for life, and sometimes "clean food, water, and air" can't fix it.

But you are right that your body is in balance. This is why taking testerone and it's analogues will not kill you unless you grossly exceed safe biological limits. Those "super-athletes" go back to normal as soon as they stop taking the drugs.

Sports are not "supposed to be about being at a fit level without enhancements." This is how YOU think it should be. Sports are about WHO IS THE BEST AT THE SPORT. This whole "clean-performing" is just a result of liberal feminization of our society. "Sports are about everyone winning! Yay! Sports are about being healthy! Yay!"

And why can't 'natural' athletes beat someone taking supplements? What about a human who genetically produces more testosterone? Doesn't he have an unfair advantage? Women who produce more testosterone are better at sports, generally speaking. Is that fair?

Put the kitty down, and step back from the ledge.

I realize that you want to be good but somehow you just keep going and going and going with your nonsense.

:)

lol

Herp a derp. I'm going to go out on a limb here...

Are you an Infowarrior? You have the combination of scientific ignorance, elitism, and poor sense of humor that points right to a heavy dose of Infowars propaganda.

Do yourself a favor and stop reading that shit. Reading Infowars will do more brain damage than a million acres of GMO corn.

lt's unfortunate.

I used to respect Mike Adams, but, I discovered that he censors the comment sections of his articles when the voice doesn't support his intentions. Sometimes I haven't agreed with the questionable tactics he uses to motivate people to buy his products. I've pointed it out in his comment section a few times, in a clear and respectable manner, only to find that my posts are censored from public view. I find this to be highly hypocritical from a guy that claims to be promoting truth. This is not a man that I can trust.

Like this point:

n the established rules to find out who is the best is the whole point of sports. There is no sport in the world that has anti-drug policy as part of the rules. These anti-drug policies were made up by governing bodies who took control over these sports.

I like Mike Adams

but I also like Delysid's rant about him.

Just keep saying "pseudoscience" over and over...

maybe you'll get some sheeple to follow you.

I'm healthy because I quit buying the medical systems' lies, so I don't care what you or anyone else tells me that the experts say. If it means that much to you, go ahead and live your life worshipping the big lie. I'm sorry for you when 'random disease' does strike you, but I'm sure you still won't change your mind. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Mike Adams is a freakin' hero...

...and has done far more to wake up the public to the problems in our medical/food industries than any "scientific" medical site on the internet.

This post reminds me of the discoloration on used toilet paper...

Note to self: Delysid= Shitstain troll

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

In the modern era, it falls on each of us ...

... to constantly use our brains, intuition and 'common sense' to make sense out of the explosion of information of all kinds we now have access to.

I always find it amusing when some random individual on an internet board takes some extreme position - and then points to a website to justify why they are so convinced of what they are saying.

Knowing full well that, most likely? They have done a minimal amount of research on the writers of the site - what their background is - where they are coming from - what is the real underlying motivation behind what they are saying ... or anything else.

This goes for Mike Adams.

AND this "Science Based Medicine" site.

Nice name. Very 'scientific'. Very ... professional medical industry-ish looking. clean design that has a lot of 'sciency-esqe' links down the right side that reference medical industry / university / researchy stuff that might all might make you feel all confident in what they're saying, before you know the first thing about them.

However this does not say one thing one way or another about whether or not you can trust what they're saying. Neither does an 'About' section that lists a bunch of contributors to the site with alphabet titles after their name maybe from 'brand name' universities with resumes that people are apparently supposed to respect as trustworthy and authoritative.

Nothing but your own head and judgement will do.

I have not looked into this site or cross referenced anything on it, but a cursory reading about halfway down the article leads me to believe that whoever wrote this?

Is merely another guy with an extreme position, that is fully invested in the perspective he is advocating for ... someone that is highly interested in picking apart the perspective of someone else with an extreme position (Mike) they THEY are fully invested in.

The internet is overflowing with stuff like this. You either learn to step back and use your head, your intuition, your experience and judgement at all times ... or you get emotionally sucked into it and end up believing any number of things that could be half truths or wrong.

That said:

I read Mike Adam's site on a daily basis. I've learned more from his site that has checked out, that make rational and intuitive sense, that keeps me informed about what's happening with food, drug, and health related issues and has personally helped me in a positive way, than not.

Do I take everything Mike says at face value? lol man.

HELL no.

Any more that I have ever taken what Ron Paul has said at face value.

Everybody gets the same amount of skepticism. Otherwise I would be a fool.

This says it all

"(Hey this kind of speculation is fun, I see why people like it!)"
+ your maniacal tirades against anyone who disagrees
= all I need to know to continue supporting Mike Adams.

lol

Exactly, right on

Good logic.

Continue supporting an alarmist who writes in maniacal tirades because his critic writes in maniacal tirades.

I'm sick of hearing the

I'm sick of hearing the putdowns of Armstrong. He never failed a drug test. 13 years later he's accused by a bunch of cheaters themselves.

Where were these people 13 years ago? There is a reason we have statutes of limitations in our laws and should apply here as well.

Maybe he doped and maybe he didn't. One thing is likely, ALL of his competition did as well. It was rampant in all sports during this time period.

One thing is for certain...he's an inspiration to cancer survivors and his charity has helped countless people.

Then, on the other hand...we have the banksters and crooked politicians who have systematically caused the collapse of this country. Why aren't they being prosecuted? Why aren't they being called out? Why aren't their government titles stripped from them? Why aren't they in prison.

It's a freakin joke.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

I think you are confused codrow

There is a big difference between informing the public about GMO's in your food and the dangers of fluoride in your water than cheating in an athletic competition. Key work here is "CHEATING." He cheated in a race where others were competing fairly so why don't you just take your trolling on down the road and leave the honest reporting to others because your judgement is clouded by the fluoride that you are apparently drinking.

I choose to not think you are a bad person but rather you are someone whose brain has been affected by the water you are drinking and the vaccines that you have taken along with the GMO's that you have ingested.

I second this.

I second this.

If you walk blindly through life, you will run into a lot of walls.

My judgment is clouded because of fluoride and GMOs? LOL

I used to think the NN cult repeated this as an immature poetic insult, but I'm srarting to realize people think this is literally true.

Read a few medical textbooks. You are not as awake as you think. You are just mindlessly repeating NN propaganda. That isn't free thinking.