Natural News-Quackadoodles

According to John Banks, Adams uses "pseudoscience to sell his lies" and is "seen as generally a quack and a shill by science bloggers."^[13] One such blogger, David Gorski of ScienceBlogs, called Natural News "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet",^[27] and a one-stop-shop for "virtually every quackery known to humankind, all slathered with a heaping, helping of unrelenting hostility to science-based medicine and science in general."^[15] Peter Bowditch of the website Ratbags,^[28] and Jeff McMahon writing for Forbes commented about the site.^[29] Steven Novella of NeuroLogica Blog called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable." Novella continued: "If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it – whatever sells the "natural" products he hawks on his site."^[2]


Individuals who commented about Adams' website include astronomer and blogger Phil Plait,^[30] PZ Myers,^[31] and Mark Hoofnagle.^[10] Brian Dunning listed it as #1 on his "Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites" list.^[32]Adams is listed as a "promoter of questionable methods" by Quackwatch.^[33] Robert T. Carroll at The Skeptic's Dictionary said, "Natural News is not a very good source for information. If you don't trust me on this, go to Respectful Insolence or any of the other bloggers on ScienceBlogs and do a search for "Natural News" or "Mike Adams" (who is Natural News). Hundreds of entries will be found and not one of them will have a good word to say about Mike Adams as a source."^[34]


An article in the journal, Vaccine said the site "tend(s) to not only spread irresponsible health information in general (e.g. discouraging chemotherapy or radiation for cancer treatment, antiretrovirals for HIV, and insulin for diabetes), but also have large sections with dubious information on vaccines."^[12]


After Patrick Swayze's death in 2009, Adams posted an article in which he remarked that Swayze, in dying, "joins many other celebrities who have been recently killed by pharmaceuticals or chemotherapy." Commentators of Adams' article on Patrick Swayze included bloggers such as David Gorski^[35] and Phil Plait, the latter of whom called Adams' commentary "obnoxious and loathsome."^[36] When Angelina Jolieunderwent a double mastectomy in May 2013 because she had the BRCA1 gene, Adams stated that "Countless millions of women carry the BRCA1 gene and never express breast cancer because they lead healthy, anti-cancer lifestyles based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals." Gorski called the article "vile" and noted that Adams had written similarly themed articles about the death of Michael Jackson, Tony Snow, and Tim Russert.^[37]


In February 2014, Brian Palmer, writing in the Daily Herald of Arlington Heights, Illinois, criticized the site's promotion of alternative medicine treatments, such as bathing in Himalayan salt and eating Hijiki seaweed, and referred to the claims Natural News made about their efficacy as "preposterous."^[38] In August 2014, Nathanael Johnson, writing for Grist, dismissed Natural News as "simply not credible" and as "nothing but a conspiracy-theory site."^[39]

Ebola controversies

On August 11, 2014, Natural News published a blog post promoting a homeopathic treatment for Ebola, which was met with harsh criticism from several commentators, and was taken down later that day.^[40] In a statement on the article, NaturalNews said that the blogger who posted the article, Ken Oftedal, was "under review" and that they did not condone anyone interacting with Ebola.^[41] However, as of August 20, 2014, the site was still featuring an article written by Adams promoting the use of herbal medicines to treat Ebola.^[42] In an article about "fake Ebola cures", Adams was criticized for arguing that herbs could prove effective as an Ebola treatment.^[43]

Notable stories

In 2011, Adams posted a report on Natural News which stated that many blueberry food products did not contain real blueberries.^[44][45]
In 2013, Adams posted an article describing what he saw when he examined Chicken McNuggets under a microscope. He said in the article that the patterns he saw included "dark black hair-like structures" and a round algae-like object.^[46][47]
In July 2014 Adams compared media outlets that wrote positively about GMOs with Nazi Germany's propagandists, calling them, "Monsanto collaborators who have signed on to accelerate heinous crimes being committed against humanity under the false promise of 'feeding the world' with toxic GMOs." He continued with a statement that he set in boldface: "that it is the moral right — and even the obligation — of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity."^[48][49] A day after the post a website called "Monsanto Collaborator" appeared online which listed the names of scientists and journalists who allegedly collaborate with the bio industry; Adams denied creating the website claiming that Monsanto set up the website in order to frame him.^[50]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News


NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget, which is now a separate site) is website run by Mike Adams (self-labeled "The Health Ranger") which promotes alternative medicine and related conspiracy theoriesand attacks on science.^[2] Even other quacks think it's a quack site.^[3]
The site particularly specializes in vaccine denialism and woo,^[4] AIDS/HIV denialism,^[5] quack cancer treatments,^[6] and conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma"^[7] and modern medicine in toto. Furthermore, Adams supports quantum woo, specifically quantum healing^[8] and quantum consciousness.^[9] NaturalNews advances a hard green position, even though the site also promotes global warming denialism.^[10] To top it off, Adams promotes conspiracy theories about gun control.^[11]
If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.




http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews


All you need to know about the wackadoodle sources being used on this thread


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t15227-a-vaccine-scandal-in-china-causes-an-outcry#290149

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews


Proponents of quantum woo are affected by the interaction of neural-energy and their natural bozon field, which results in the creation of one moron and the decay of two neurons. The moron has a half-life of 42 years

The moron seems to have lasted a lot longer than that at the moment.  Woo knows when his neurons (if he has any) will implode of their own accord.

I DO believe that "Natural News" could be one of those websites that some of eddie's regular health and nutrition articles have quoted from or linked to, is it not ???              



P.S.  "Quckadoodle"  !!!

YOU really do have to love some of those sceptical American phrases..

Morning Bee

Yes this site is exactly where Eddie is being suckered into believing such gibberish, sadly.
I mean for other quack sites to even state its quackadoodle, really is showing how far off the cuckoo chart this loon who runs this website is.

What to me is the worst part is people are buying into this bullshit and then not protecting their children with vaccines. Its the worst form of negligence by a parent to not take sound medical advice and then listen to this crackpot on this website, as they are placing their children's health at risk.
That to me is being irresponsible.

 Bloody hell has Eddie been having opinions again? Her a woman too, I think we should have her shot

Miffs2 wrote: Bloody hell has Eddie been having opinions again? Her a woman too, I think we should have her shot

Everyone has a right to their views, never stated they were not Nems.

But if these views are based on quackadoodles which led to negligence and a child suffered due to them not doing what was medically advised, what would you say then Nems?

Are you then going to say the parents are irresponsible and to blame then for this negligence?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


I DO believe that "Natural News" could be one of those websites that some of eddie's regular health and nutrition articles have quoted from or linked to, is it not ???              



P.S.  "Quckadoodle"  !!!

YOU really do have to love some of those sceptical American phrases..

Of course it is. That's why he posted it. He's got his little umpy-grumpy head on.


Doesn't matter, most of the sites most of us link to, can also be ridiculed - for every link there is a link that says "your" link is rubbish......
Let didge have his fun.

We all know he HAS to be right or his head explodes

Miffs2 wrote: Bloody hell has Eddie been having opinions again? Her a woman too, I think we should have her shot

Yes it's that time of the month where didge bleeds out of his nose becaeue I dared to go agaisnt him so we will see a lot of "Eddie" posts

I don't mind. I LOVE being the centre of attention!!

Better than being stuck in a basement having your own desperate mini disco and having to log off early cos no fucker is replying.

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


I DO believe that "Natural News" could be one of those websites that some of eddie's regular health and nutrition articles have quoted from or linked to, is it not ???              



P.S.  "Quckadoodle"  !!!

YOU really do have to love some of those sceptical American phrases..

Of course it is. That's why he posted it. He's got his little umpy-grumpy head on.


Doesn't matter, most of the sites most of us link to, can also be ridiculed - for every link there is a link that says "your" link is rubbish......
Let didge have his fun.

We all know he HAS to be right or his head explodes

No that was you having the tantrum yesterday swearing your head off

I am posting this for your own benefit because I have your own children's best interest at heart and would not want their mother to be easily lulled in by idiots like from that website.

People like that quackadoodle are dangerous because they mislead people Eddie

Take that as you will, but it concerns me greatly that you get taking in by people like this

eddie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote: Bloody hell has Eddie been having opinions again? Her a woman too, I think we should have her shot

Yes it's that time of the month where didge bleeds out of his nose becaeue I dared to go agaisnt him so we will see a lot of "Eddie" posts

I don't mind. I LOVE being the centre of attention!!

Better than being stuck in a basement having your own desperate mini disco and having to log off early cos no fucker is replying.

lol someone is still having a tantrum ha ha

Grow up love you acting like a baby

I am happy down here even though I am being punished over no rule being broken but two mods having a personal issue

That is hilarious and people come down to join me to debate, where even you have

What does that say about how I can even draw people to debate here?

Seriously, best thing you can do, is stop acting like a baby

Good luck

And I see where people are naive to a website, they are being utterly irresponsible by making falsified claims still

Yes people are entittled to their views, but I will rightly question if those views in danger that of children, through negligence

I mean seriously the claims being made on vaccines is disgusting, when they have saved millions and millions of lives

Sorry, but this is what is so wrong today when people are so easily taken even by quacks off the web

That really concerns me

Enjoy your nosebleed
I'm popping out later - I'll get you some tampax

eddie wrote:

Enjoy your nosebleed
I'm popping out later - I'll get you some tampax

I do not suffer from nosebleeds Eddie, I am more concerned if you are unfit to raise children, based on how you could make some very poor choices, based on being gullible to things you read off the web

I mean someone who is bought and taken in by wackadoodles off the web is irresponsible and even more so if they deny their children the best possible medical care.

This is not an insult but a very grave concern at your naivety to pseudo nonsense on the web, as you will place your children's health in danger.

That is responsible


You really need to stop acting so immature

Measles are breaking out all over Britain. Getting fewer headlines is the fact that measles are back in the USA too. In fact they are in our region. A mini-epidemic is raging in Brooklyn. Measles for cripes sake! The disease that many of us over 60 had as kids that should never occur is back with a vengeance. The reason for the diseases reappearance is simple—failure to vaccinate. Maybe it is time to get tough on those whose choices put others at risk.

For decades, there has been a safe, effective vaccine that works exceedingly well against the measles–95% full protection for a kid who has been vaccinated– and nearly equally well at preventing transmission to others. The more people have been vaccinated the tougher it is for measles to gain a foothold.

NY City health officials have reported 30 cases so far–26 in Borough Park and four more in Williamsburg. The NY Daily News reports that the consequences of this outbreak have been dire:

“There have been two hospitalizations, a miscarriage and a case of pneumonia as a result of this outbreak,” a Health Department spokeswoman said. “All cases involved adults or children who were not vaccinated due to refusal or delays in vaccination.”

So far the outbreak has been among religious Jews some of whom shun getting the vaccine for their kids out of fear it causes autism Dr. Yu Shia Lin of Maimonides Medical Center in Borough Park told The News.


Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn are not the only ones making poor, dangerous and sometimes fatal choices by avoiding vaccination. 20 people were sickened a few weeks ago in North Carolina when an unvaccinated person came back from India, attended two youth baseball games, and later, developed symptoms of measles having exposed many people. An infant in Battle Creek, Michigan, whose parents traveled out of the country without vaccinating their child against measles likely exposed others to measles at a pediatric office and subsequently at the emergency room where their measles-infected child was taken. And Britain is battling an enormous outbreak of measles directly attributable to non-vaccination

Pockets of measles spring up in places where parents choose for one reason or another not to vaccinate and then take an infected child on a bus, to an airport, to daycare, an amusement park, a church or other public places.

For many years public health officials have tried to debunk false fears about vaccine safety. Public officials have tried to make vaccination a condition of entering school. But choosing not to vaccinate is still permitted. Some parents home school to duck the vaccination requirement. And some parents just won’t believe that the vaccines are safe no matter how many studies prove otherwise.

I think there should be a right to decide not to vaccinate your child. But, we have been far too lenient in putting up with the consequences of that lousy choice. If your kid gets the measles, and remember public health officials are getting very very good at tracing outbreaks to their source, and makes my kid sick (can happen since vaccine is not 100% effective), my newborn baby die (newborns can’t benefit from vaccines) or my wife miscarry (fetuses are at especially high risk), then shouldn’t I be able to sue you for the harm you have done?

Some will say that the law in NY and other states allows refusal and that protects against liability. Maybe.

If you know the dangers of measles or for that matter whooping cough or mumps, and you still choose to put others at risk should you be exempt from the consequences of that choice? I can choose to drink but if I run you over it is my responsibility. I can choose not to shovel the snow from my walk but if you fall I pay. Why should failing to vaccinate your children or yourself be any different?

When the subject is vaccines a tiny minority continue to put the rest of us at risk. We are willing to let them choose to do so without penalty. That should change. If I know you or your kid made mine sick because you chose not to vaccinate then you should bear full responsibility for the harm you knew or ought to have known could happen.

http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/05/23/liability-for-failure-to-vaccinate/

Interesting points here to read to.
I think if a child has contracted from another child where the parents conciously and knowingly did not vaccinate, then they should be liable.




A German boy named Micha died last June after several years of agony from a rare but fatal complication of measles called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE).  While still too young to be vaccinated himself, he contracted measles from an unvaccinated child in a pediatrician’s waiting room. Years later, SSPE erupted. One family’s choice not to vaccinate their child effectively destroyed another family. In the United States, where health insurance coverage is more limited than in Germany, Micha’s parents could have incurred substantial medical costs on top of their incredible heartache and suffering. The question is, would it be reasonable to hold the unvaccinated parents liable for those costs? In a recent blog post, Bioethicist Arthur Caplan suggested that in cases similar to Micha’s, the non-vaccinating parents should be held responsible.  He said:

“I think there should be a right … not to vaccinate your child.  But…. if your kid gets the measles…and makes my newborn baby die… shouldn’t I be able to sue you for the harm you have done?”

There are two arguments that can be used to support Caplan’s points and justify tort liability.  The first focuses on compensation for the victims. The medical and scientific consensus is that the risks of vaccinating are significantly smaller than the risks of not vaccinating.  Therefore, those that do not vaccinate are choosing the larger risk: an unreasonable choice. Since the tort of negligence was created specifically to compensate those harmed because of another’s unreasonable choice, the conditions of tort liability apply. The second argument focuses on preventing externalities observed when parents roll the cost of their decisions onto others.  Several studies have shown that unvaccinated children are at increased risk of vaccine preventable diseases, and therefore more likely to transmit those diseases and cause others harm.  If parents are not held responsible and forced to pay when their unvaccinated child infects another, they will not consider those costs when deciding whether or not to vaccinate. However, assigning liability in these cases will encourage parents to include those costs into their calculation.

Certainly there are some legal challenges to consider here as follows:

No duty to act:

Normally, our legal system does not require people to pay for harms caused by their non-action. For example, if I see a baby drowning in a shallow pool of water and do nothing, I can’t be held legally responsible for the child’s death.  The United States system values personal autonomy, and considers telling people to act as a greater imposition than requiring that if they act, they act carefully. Nonetheless, tort liability means that a parent who does not vaccinate could be liable and there are reasons to think it’s appropriate. First, the decision not to vaccinate is not typically a passive one. Parents who consciously choose not to vaccinate their children often claim that they’ve done extensive research and actively defend their decision against pressure from doctors and others. This is not a stand-and-watch situation: it’s more of an active choice.


Second, the “no duty to act” rule exists for policy reasons, and has exceptions, also for policy reasons. There are good reasons to create such an exception here. We should usually respect parental medical choices for children, unless they are not in the best interest of the child or can negatively impact others not actively involved in making that decision.   For example, courts imposed liability when parents did not give ADHD medication to a child, and that child hurt someone else and they ruled that a TB patient that refuses treatment may be involuntary committed to protect others.  The courts have demonstrated that when your right to refuse treatment affects others, it can come with a price.

Causation:

To win their case, plaintiffs have to show that, more likely than not, the defendant caused their harm. They do not need to prove this with absolute certainty or completely rule out other causes.  There are almost always other possible causes, and if the law were to require absolute certainty, plaintiffs would lose even in cases where the defendant was very likely to have caused the harm. In some cases it’s impossible to prove who caused the harm to the plaintiff. In the case of suffering with a preventable disease, it may be impossible to prove causation, such as if there was an outbreak of pertussis in a community and the plaintiff was a ten-year old who went out in public a lot.  But if an unvaccinated child traveling abroad contracts measles and upon return introduces that disease into a previously uninfected community, the disease can often be traced to an originating patient.   Therefore, the ability to prove causation will have a large impact on the ruling in each specific case.

There are several common counter arguments to consider in discussing the legal liability of choosing not to vaccinate.   For instance:

Why single out unvaccinated children? What if a child is infected by a vaccinated child?To explain this, it’s best to understand that our system does not impose liability just because harm happens. We impose liability when someone made an unreasonable choice and that choice caused harm. In the case of preventable diseases, if parents vaccinated their child and took a reasonable precaution than there was no purposeful negligence, even if they were unlucky and the precaution failed.  On the other hand, a non-vaccinating parent who chose not to take the precaution may be deemed negligent.  


What about compensation to children who may be injured by a vaccine, why can’t they sue? The fact is that there is already a no-fault compensation system, known as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is available to children who have suffered rare cases of vaccine injury. The argument remains that if we are compensating children injured by the choice to vaccinate, why are we not compensating those injured by the choice to not vaccinate? 


What if the unvaccinated individual had obtained a school immunization exemption?School immunization requirements are created by legislatures, based on a desire to prevent outbreaks.  The existing exemption policies represent a community’s choice to incur a certain level of risk.   But the state’s choice to allow some children to attend schools, even if they aren’t vaccinated as required, should not deprive  families from seeking  compensation for specific harm or injury due to negligence from those who seek special permission not to adhere to the law. In closing, I would like to state that personal autonomy is important. I would not normally support criminal sanctions against parents who choose not to vaccinate (it might be different if a parent directly put a child a risk by that choice, e.g. refusing a rabies vaccine after a child was bitten by an unvaccinated animal). But autonomy should be accompanied by responsibility. If you choose to reject expert opinion and believe you know more than the majority of doctors, scientists, and health officials, you should not roll the costs of that choice onto others. The legal system can, and should, hold those responsible for harm if it is determined that their actions led to another person’s suffering.

http://shotofprevention.com/2013/09/12/legal-responsibilities-in-choosing-not-to-vaccinate/

In that case, if someone had caught ebola from Pauline Cafferkey, should she have been prosecuted for knowingly exposing herself to it and then getting on a plane?

Should we prosecute people who knowingly go out with a cold, thereby exposing those who might be immunocompromised to a virus which might have a bad effect on them?

Raggamuffin wrote:In that case, if someone had caught ebola from Pauline Cafferkey, should she have been prosecuted for knowingly exposing herself to it and then getting on a plane?

No and do you know why your claim is absurd.

Are you saying now that medical staff should never assist people with conditions, they may themselves contract and just let them die?

Is that your absurd reasoning in this situation?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:In that case, if someone had caught ebola from Pauline Cafferkey, should she have been prosecuted for knowingly exposing herself to it and then getting on a plane?

No and do you know why your claim is absurd.

Are you saying now that medical staff should never assist people with conditions, they may themselves contract and just let them die?

Is that your absurd reasoning in this situation?

You appear to be taking the view that people should be prosecuted if their kid gives another kid measles because of non-vaccination, so what's the difference?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


No and do you know why your claim is absurd.

Are you saying now that medical staff should never assist people with conditions, they may themselves contract and just let them die?

Is that your absurd reasoning in this situation?

You appear to be taking the view that people should be prosecuted if their kid gives another kid measles because of non-vaccination, so what's the difference?

I am saying parents who are negligent by not taking medical advice and going instead off pseudo sites to then place not only their children at risk and others are very irresponsible.

The difference is, she is a trained medical professional who was unlucky to contract the virus whilst treating people who had ebola.

The aspects are so far removed and its ridiculous you are trying to even compare them

As you used the word "ridiculous", I'll leave you to talk to yourself.

Raggamuffin wrote:As you used the word "ridiculous", I'll leave you to talk to yourself.

No problem, glad I could educate you again on something you are clearly ignorant on and irresponsible as well  

eddie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote: Bloody hell has Eddie been having opinions again? Her a woman too, I think we should have her shot

Yes it's that time of the month where didge bleeds out of his nose becaeue I dared to go agaisnt him so we will see a lot of "Eddie" posts

I don't mind. I LOVE being the centre of attention!!

Better than being stuck in a basement having your own desperate mini disco and having to log off early cos no fucker is replying.

He doesn't take kindly to being disagreed with does he? 
Mind, he is not alone in that on here 

Miffs2 wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yes it's that time of the month where didge bleeds out of his nose becaeue I dared to go agaisnt him so we will see a lot of "Eddie" posts

I don't mind. I LOVE being the centre of attention!!

Better than being stuck in a basement having your own desperate mini disco and having to log off early cos no fucker is replying.

He doesn't take kindly to being disagreed with does he? 
Mind, he is not alone in that on here 

Seriously Nems, you have lost the plot if you think that is what its about

This is about people buying into gibberish which can and does effect children

I find that utterly irresponsible