-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.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Are you being paid for this or are you just a "Bloom... Id...?

Codrow, you got to get out of your mom's basement more often and get some sun. It is apparent you suffer from what we in the real world call "U..f.l Id..y."

Why don't you put that rag down that you have been huffing on for the past few hours and realize that lighter fluid is not good for you. You mom was right this morning when she said you needed to start taking your meds. Usually I would try to discourage someone from taking Psychotropic drugs but in you case I guess I can make an exception.

Oh now I'm huffing lighter fluid?

I thought it was GMOs and fluoride? LOL.

Come on, doctor, please give a definitive diagnosis. Surely with your advanced degree in reading internet blogs, you are a biomedical science expert!

Here is a video on Lance Armstrong.

It shows him to be a very controlling person who intimidated his peers. Watch the video and come to your own conclusions. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/lance-armstrong-doping-scand...

As for Mike Adams he is making a living and also providing good information.

I have seen the damage done by long term use of drugs, and the end result of steroids is not NICE. It should not be part of sports competitions. If the best guy uses it, then the others are FORCED to use it too in order to compete...

Lance Armstrong might be an asshole, but that is irrelevant

His personality has nothing to do with anything. You are just trying to distract from the point.

And I thought 'natural' is best?! If 'artificial' drugs gives an athlete a physical advantage, why can't drugs work like that for other aspects of health? Like immunity? Why can't vaccines give someone an immunity advantage over someone non-vaccinated? *This is jsut an example.

Lance Armstrong is 41 years old and STILL WINNING ENDURANCE MARATHONS. When is that damage from the steroids going to kick in?? Also, why would people be forced to use steroids? That's like saying, "if one person is allowed to use a vaccine, everyone else will be forced to become vaccinated to compete to survive!"

You are fear mongering. If the 'natural' lifestyle is truly the best, why can't it compete with people who use drugs responsibly?

I'll answer that question so there is no confusion- Because the 'natural' movement is based on MYTHS, SUPERTITION, AND PSEUDOSCIENCE.

What kind of logic are you really trying to use?

So what you're saying is a man who takes "Meth" and can stay up for days over someone who is just taking vitamins is healthier than the man taking vitamins? Come on, I could give you so many examples where the short term benefit for something is so bad for you but I feel you hatred for Mike Adams would not allow you to be able to process the information.

Long Term Effects of Steroid Use. A few are named below.

• Liver problems and complications – risk of peliosis hepatitis, wherein normal liver and spleen tissue is replaced by blood-filled cysts. These cysts have also been linked with liver failure; the cysts can develop into tumors, and eventually lead to liver cancer. Jaundice (orange/yellow skin) has also been associated with steroid abuse.

• Cardiovascular conditions - steroid users become more prone to stroke, premature heart conditions like infective endocarditis, and heart attack.

• Neurologic complications – Steroids can alter the brain’s ability to produce serotonin, an enzyme associated with our sense of well-being. This can lead to bouts of depression and aggression later in life.

• Cancer Risk - prostate and kidney cancer

YOU have FREE CHOICE to use steroids and free to suffer the consequences.
And good luck with that.
http://www.testcountry.org/long-term-effects-and-complicatio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid
http://kidshealth.org/teen/food_fitness/sports/steroids.html#

Your last statement

"Because the 'natural' movement is based on MYTHS, SUPERTITION, AND PSEUDOSCIENCE." You need to prove this, as it is only that, an opinion. The FDA's statements are continually being proven false, and many people have personal experience with natural making them healthier. My whole family, including myself, my husband and all my children and many of our grandchildren have never been able to eat any pasteurized dairy products without getting seriously ill. Then we heard the truth about raw milk and it's natural enzymes, and we have tried it, and use it regularly as it doesn't make us sick, and improves our health in general. We are not the only ones, and Ron Paul noticed, too, and is fighting for us all.

Okay?

Ron Paul also thinks psychoactive drugs should be legal, but he is not advocating for people to take LSD. Does Ron Paul advocate drinking raw milk? No. he just says you have the right to do it. And I agree with him. Big difference.

Is there any scientific evidence that conclusively demonstrates that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk? I don't know if there is, but most of the claims anecdotal. There is ample evidence that demonstrates that pasteurization kills the vast majority of potential pathogenic bacteria. How exactly is raw milk "making you healthier overall?"

You can eat raw pork, too, and most of the time nothing pathogenic will noticably harm you. But if you get a rare batch that has trichinosis it can seriously harm you or kill you. It's the same logic behind pasteurization.

There have been many studies on raw milk,

check out the work done by Dr. Weston Price. When people don't have the enzymes and bacteria in their intestines, their immune system is seriously affected. Most of the cases of dangerous milk, was actually pasteurized milk, but the FDA decided to use that to go after raw milk producers. This is pretty typical of the FDA, as you see the FDA is run by people who are receiving lots of money from the big milk companies and Big Pharma. I had arthritis, a calcium deficiency and teeth problems, all cured by drinking raw milk. My aunt recently died from c diff, which is caused by the intestines having no enzymes and good bacteria, which came from huge amounts of antibiotics. This could have been cured by fermented foods, raw milk, and other natural foods full of enzymes and probiotics.
Do you work for the FDA? the AMA? You sound like my senator here in Wy, who constantly gives more power to the FDA, and he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Monsanto and Big Pharma. But, let's go after Mike Adams.

Nope. Training to become a dentist.

I want the FDA to be eliminated.

But how exactly did raw milk help your teeth problems? I'm being dead serious. Please be as specific as possible.

what she said

If you really want to know, and are really studying to be a dentist,
get a copy of Dr. Weston A. Price's "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration."
He was a dentist at the turn of the century and did extensive research into the links between diet and oral & overall health.

From there, you can begin to see the rise in power of the FDA...

tilting@windbags

I'm quite familir with Weston Price

He founded the precursor to the ADA.

His research took place long before scientific understanding of biochemistry and microbiology.

He did some good research, but he made very premature conclusions about the range of nutrition. No one in medicine disputes that nutrition plays a role in certain pathologies. But Price extended explanations much farther than what is known today. Some of his research was verified, other stuff proven to be false.

There is an alternative health movement that preaches that all diseases are related to diet. They have revived 100 year old research to try to verify these claims. It is ridiculous. There has been 100 years and 100,000s of studies since then. That would be like people trying to revive the idea of ether because they think Einstein is wrong about relativity.

Most

modern day diseases are directly tied to diet...chronic fatigue, fibro, autism, heart disease.....and on and on. There is a very direct correlation between our western diets and these diseases.

It's amazing to me that if we had a group of farm animals who's disease rates started skyrocketing the first thing we would do is check the feed....humans are too stupid to check that for themselves.

I'm not claiming every disease is cured by changing diet...but i am arguing that diet is vastly increasing disease rates in this country above normal rates and there is no question there is a direct correlation.

train to be a biologic

train to be a biologic dentist then, and you just may become illuminated...maybe.

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

Training to be a dentist?

That's great, then you should really read Dr. Weston Price's work. It really is amazing, and he was a dentist. I had very little bone in my jaws, and the roots were disappearing, but the bone has grown back and my cavities have seemingly disappeared. It isn't only raw milk, but lots of butter and cod liver oil too.

Do you have the x-rays from before and after?

I would love to see proof of non-surgical alveolar bone regeneration because of a diet of raw milk.

Same thing with the root resorption and the "disappearing" cavities.

Dentists never let me have the xrays.

I never figured that one out, as I was the one who paid for them. And how would one go about proving that it was raw milk? Like I said, It was raw milk, lots of organic butter, cod liver oil, and I had forgot: lots of range fed hen eggs. Those were the main things that I have done differently. Oh, and by the way, true "science" is "observation" which is what Dr. Price did.

There are many ways to conduct that research

If there are enzymes in raw milk that are not in pasteurized milk, what are they and what is their mechanism? What is in the eggs of a range fed hen that is not in other eggs?

You could test these diets on rats. Or clinically, but that is tougher because people would have to strictly control their diets. Compliance with these studies is difficult.

And science is based off of observation, but it is also about drawing conclusions on evidence. Price was wrong about many things. He made sweeping generalizations about cultures and never analyzed them quantifitavely. He was observational, but also very biased.

Thousands and thousands of teeth were unnecessarily removed based on his faulty research. Are you just going to ignore that?

I find it strange that the holistic medicine culture, which typically opposes surgical removal of organs, would so passionately support a man who advocated liberally extracting teeth. Teeth are organs, too!

By the way, it is kind of ridiculous to present 80 year old research to a dentist and act like it is groundbreaking research. It is not like hundreds of thousands of dentists over 8 decades have just ignored the role of diet and systemic and dental health. The mouth is part of the digestive system.

There are many ways to conduct that research

If there are enzymes in raw milk that are not in pasteurized milk, what are they and what is their mechanism? What is in the eggs of a range fed hen that is not in other eggs?

You could test these diets on rats. Or clinically, but that is tougher because people would have to strictly control their diets. Compliance with these studies is difficult.

And science is based off of observation, but it is also about drawing conclusions on evidence. Price was wrong about many things. He made sweeping generalizations about cultures and never analyzed them quantifitavely. He was observational, but also very biased.

Thousands and thousands of teeth were unnecessarily removed based on his faulty research. Are you just going to ignore that?

I find it strange that the holistic medicine culture, which typically opposes surgical removal of organs, would so passionately support a man who advocated liberally extracting teeth. Teeth are organs, too!

By the way, it is kind of ridiculous to present 80 year old research to a dentist and act like it is groundbreaking research. It is not like hundreds of thousands of dentists over 8 decades have just ignored the role of diet and systemic and dental health. The mouth is part of the digestive system.

He won't read it, he has an

He won't read it, he has an agenda. Hopefully, he won't be putting mercury in our kids' mouths.

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

I won't use mercury-silver amalgams in my practice

No need to be concerned.

I will also use non-fluoridated dental materials for patients who fear fluoride and request it.

I will also do gold inlays and onlays because I think gold is a fantastic dental material even though many dentists are moving away from it.

If you think I am an enemy of your health, you are mistaken.

Please read his stuff

He was the head of research at the National Dental Association and did much research into healthy teeth, and what causes them and unhealthy teeth and what causes them. He is the reason that I started trying to fix my teeth, using his research.
http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Physical-Degeneration-Weston...

I personally don't know

I personally don't know enough about this Mike Adams or natural news to form an opinion of either, but I think you're dead on about Lance. Why is he the only one being deamonized? It's not like he was the only one doping at the time. Me thinks this is a witch hunt.

surprise, surprise

the biggest dope on here defends a dope cheat.

I'm capable of independent free-thinking.

And breaking away from the collectivism that dominates our society.

But keep making stupid puns and defending the accusations of the mainstream media. Be a part of the collective and keep demonizing 'doping.' Everyone else is doing it!

*Username Freethink is criticizing me as a dope for going against mainstream opinion and taking a position that few, if any, will dare to defend. Oh the irony.

Why should Lance Armstronge be demonized???

Oh, I don't know.....maybe because he cheats.( just like Mitt and Barry)

So using erythropoietin is like election fraud?

I don't get this analogy.

Lance Armstrong is being demonized in the same manner as someone who failed to pay all of their required income taxes.

This is government and other "independent" governing bodies abusing laws such as the Federal Arbitration Act and the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act to extend the War on Drugs. Plain and simple.

Talk about "off topic"...

Talk about "off topic"... this isn't even marginally political.

It's not any more off-topic than most of the stuff here

Mike Adam's propaganda pops up here daily. I think exposing him is quite relevant.

Also, I wanted to express my perspective on the "anti-doping" craze, which governments have got themselves involved in, like Roger Clemens testifying in front of Congress. It's political.