CULT 'Scientism' ...: How scientific claims behind cancer, vaccines, psychiatric drugs & GMOs

FULL TITLE:


The CULT of 'Scientism' explained: How scientific claims behind cancer, vaccines, psychiatric drugs and GMOs are nothing more than corporate-funded science FRAUD

Monday, April 18, 2016
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
.
www.naturalnews.com...
.

(NaturalNews) Sadly, what often passes for "science" today in the world of health is little more than "Scientism" -- a dangerous cult founded on irrational dogma and faith-based beliefs in faulty, fraudulent ideas being paraded as science.
.
A common trait that weaves its way through every topic of "Scientism" is corporate profits. Any time something is being pushed with aggressive demands of "SCIENCE!" that also happens to enrich wealthy corporations, it's probably based on fraud, not real science. Perpetrators of fraudulent scientism include . . . [see link for the names] and too many others to even name.
.

Some of my notes from the podcast:

--The cult of scientism is rife with contradictions
--Scientism quite similar to most cults

--Gets into natural selection of Darwinism
--Either being selected genetically for survival or for death--a major contradiction--can't have both.

--Pretty hostile toward the conventional medical cancer industry.
--Cancer industry & docs believe in effects without causes.

--"How your genes are expressed depends on the internal environment that your cells are living in" vis a vis nutrients vs toxins ...
--Anti-cancer genes get expressed in your body when you avoid toxins, pollutants etc.

--Your genetic code has possibilities . . . what's expressed depends on other variables.
--Avoid synthetic chemicals and heavy metals where at all possible . . . fosters more health etc.

= = =

I think he makes some excellent points. And, the version at the link is NOT the FULL version of the podcast, as I understand it.

Nevertheless, this version was less research rich and referenced than I had expected. Perhaps the full version has more of those refs.

I think he's largely correct in his assertions.

However, I'm sure that others will be very vocal regarding whatever aspects jangle their sensibilities.

I think the points are worth fair-minded, reasonable discussion, at any rate.

a reply to: BO XIAN



"However, I'm sure that others will wail at loud volume about whatever aspects jangle their sensibilities."

GREAT way to start a discussion bub. By insulting those who might have an opposite view to yours.

Count me out.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Use something other than 'Natural news'. We all know there is a Big Pharma problem. We all know cancer treatment could be better, for certain cancers. My life, however, was saved by DOCTORS at Roswell Park Cancer Institute.

I have severe complicated migraine syndrome with anxiety. I have tried every single natural remedy, but my clonazepam is the oly thing that works. I have severe insomnia, in that case I use a combination of alternating natural remedies and prescription drugs. Some work some days, others work on other days.

Most vaccines are necessary, some are not.

There is no 'whole approach' to this. Places like Natural News would have you believe otherwise.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: BO XIAN



"However, I'm sure that others will wail at loud volume about whatever aspects jangle their sensibilities."

GREAT way to start a discussion bub. By insulting those who might have an opposite view to yours.

Count me out.

I don't see his comment as an insult, however, I'm not one to take everything on the interwebz as personal.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I do, often, wonder how much stuff is just simply regurgitated.

As testing methods become better, and science progresses, is it not a good idea to go back and review things from when others came, and make sure they are still sound advice?

Nope, we did a study back in the 40's, and it's still sound, no need to retest anything, it's set in stone.

Nothing is set in stone, and even in time, stone changes and erodes only to be marked by someone else.

Independant, un-biased tests, that are not "funded to lean in a guided direction" would be something, wouldn't they?

nice post, that's cool that you take notes like that as well... i'll check out that podcast, although it's not surprising.. nothing i can't really disagree with here, as if that's gotta be the motivation behind comments

The corporatocricy seems to have everybody in their pocket; politicians, media, lobbyists, scientists, banks, environmentalists, etc... at this point it's kinda funny people still can't piece this obvious puzzle together and still wanna hold that faith of trust in our authorities.. everything and everyone under this economic monetary system seems to have a price tag on it- authorites have had their "for sale" signs shinning too brightly for too long... scientists included

i think for scientists, they go through so much schooling/programming that they have been conditioned to believe what they've learned is true.. but what they probably learned is filtered and manipulated in these institutions, like med school..
You know that in france it was illegal to mention any positive benefits from canabis? so generations grow up with the idea that it's bad, illegal and such..

a reply to: reldra

Good points, imho.

Congrats on finding a mix that works for you.

I doubt any one . . . dedicated-to-a-cause site

is going to be all that robust with all sides of complicated issues.

However, given the full court press by the oligarchy with massive media, universities and entertainment industries across the board I doubt there's SUFFICIENT Natural News type sites shouting from the rooftops about the OTHER SIDE of such issues. I think a bit of stacking the deck for the other side is long overdue.

originally posted by: Cygnis

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: BO XIAN



"However, I'm sure that others will wail at loud volume about whatever aspects jangle their sensibilities."

GREAT way to start a discussion bub. By insulting those who might have an opposite view to yours.

Count me out.

I don't see his comment as an insult, however, I'm not one to take everything on the interwebz as personal.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I do, often, wonder how much stuff is just simply regurgitated.

As testing methods become better, and science progresses, is it not a good idea to go back and review things from when others came, and make sure they are still sound advice?

Nope, we did a study back in the 40's, and it's still sound, no need to retest anything, it's set in stone.

Nothing is set in stone, and even in time, stone changes and erodes only to be marked by someone else.

Independant, un-biased tests, that are not "funded to lean in a guided direction" would be something, wouldn't they?

I didnt say I took it personally. But that sentence was clearly derogatory. How you can't see that is beyond me.

It's like starting a religious debate as an atheist and saying something like "let's see what the gullible people who believe in invisible friends have to say"

It's not inviting. And neither is the OP.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: reldra

Good points, imho.

Congrats on finding a mix that works for you.

I doubt any one . . . dedicated-to-a-cause site

is going to be all that robust with all sides of complicated issues.

However, given the full court press by the oligarchy with massive media, universities and entertainment industries across the board I doubt there's SUFFICIENT Natural News type sites shouting from the rooftops about the OTHER SIDE of such issues. I think a bit of stacking the deck for the other side is long overdue.

There are better sites for natural healing. Natural News just has a bad rep.

a reply to: Cygnis

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! I greatly agree.

So much research is so very expensive these days.

Maybe there needs to be some crowd sourcing for critical research questions about health.

But we'd have to vet those setting it up. No small challenge, maybe.

Then there's the 10+ holistic med docs that were evidently killed over the last year or so in the SE???

Sigh. What an era we live in.

Thanks for your kind post.

a reply to: reldra

I prefer to take whatever seems reasonable in; sort it, sift it, compare it . . . maybe research the main actors involved and maybe not--and spit out the bones--and wait to see what's confirmed from other sources, if I don't already know.

As I've noted elsewhere--IT WAS THE ABSOLUTELY FLAKIEST groups that first identified earliest who Hitler was, what he would become and what he would do.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Sometimes I get weary of some of the kneejerk assaultiveness of the other side on thread after thread after thread.

Sometimes I have the fantasy that touching on that may decrease the intensity and pervasiveness of it.

a reply to: reldra

We all know cancer treatment could be better, for certain cancers. My life, however, was saved by DOCTORS at Roswell Park Cancer Institute.

One time I have to fully and wholheartedly agree, Finally . Mine was saved at the Winship Cancer Institute and Emory University Hospital.(Yeah , the very same ones that Trump scribbled in chalk strikes fear. Dont hold that against them though)

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Sometimes I get weary of some of the kneejerk assaultiveness of the other side on thread after thread after thread.

Sometimes I have the fantasy that touching on that may decrease the intensity and pervasiveness of it.

Not to sound like a child..but he started it. Direct your weariness at that op, not me. Cheers

a reply to: BO XIAN

Stop using natural news as a source then.

Problem solved.

Science follows evidence.

You cannot tell me with a straight face that the 1700 world wide studies were all paid for by monsanto.

You cannot tell me that the thousands of studies done on vaccines world wide are wrong, but your one guy is right.

You will not convince me that somehow all of these scientists got together and are plotting to hurt people.

This delusional anti-science garbage is peddled by discredited people who have had their licenses revoked to practice medicine, their "findings" completely destroyed by peer review, and still you people show up thinking you know more because some asshole who is selling essential oils and weed as a cancer cure said so.

a reply to: projectvxn

I think your assumed stats are off.

There's more than one study involved.

And, there's thousands of personal story anecdotes.

However, the 'true believers' have lots of company.

Try this....

The next time you become ill...

refuse all treatment and medication.

Take personal responsibility and don't rely on any scientific BS. Just prayer an self reliance should do the trick.

no asprin, sunscreen, birthcontrol pills, etc. and if you wear glasses to see....don't use them, it's just BS science and you don't need any of that in our lives.

originally posted by: olaru12
Try this....

The next time you become ill...

refuse all treatment and medication.

Take personal responsibility and don't rely on any scientific BS. Just prayer an self reliance should do the trick.

Yep..the hypocrisy of the anti science crowd would soon become clear. Or how about this. Stop using a computer or anything with a microchip in it since a transistor is a purely quantum mechanical device.

I'm sure you can post your distrust for mainstream science online using an abacus.

It didn't take long at all for this to devolve into accusing the OP of hating science or being "anti science". With your "you should stop going to the Dr." nonsense. I don't believe this thread is about science being fake, in general. It looks to me to be about corruption within certain sciences and medicines. Who in the world is actually "anti science"? How does that make any sense?

also Natural News isn't the best reference for any argument.

a reply to: saintdopeium

WELL PUT. THANKS.

ABSOLUTELY.

I respect solid, fair-minded, non-distorted, objective [however rare that is, if possible, at all], reasonably meticulous, carefully & fairly managed, fitting (as in fits reality, context etc. vs some political strategy), meaningful (or genuinely curiosity based), repeatable, research based science.

However, I'm somewhat of an expert on religion. And much that goes for objective science these days is not. It's religion. It has it's high priests, dogma, gate-keeping, purgatory and hell where no one gets tenured nor their fair share of the media or public square to present their evidence. etc. etc. etc.

I realize that sets the True Believers in the Religion of Scientism's teeth on edge. Some few may get over it. Most won't, until the falsified dogmas of the Religion of Scientism bite them hard in their rear or hearts or some such.

= = = =

As to Natural News . . . so what.

Ever since my boss told me about the flakiest groups earliest and most accurately identifying Hitler and what he would do and become--I've been a LOT more generous about what I listened to; gave a fair chance; considered thoughtfully. And, over the following 45+ years, I've observed that I've been quite surprised by some gems out of some really smelly muck. Life is full of paradoxes.

It doesn't cost a lot, usually, to give an idea or a presentation a thoughtful fair hearing. It will either be confirmed or it won't.

I waited a number of decades before I saw some of my hunches and some of the flakier allegations confirmed about UFO stuff. I just put the ideas, info, evidence on the shelf . . . kept it loosely in mind . . . waited to see what fell off as false or confirmed.

I realize that there are certain folks with personality types and/or serious degrees of attachment disorder who go fairly berzerk at the idea that life and reality do not march precisely according to their drum or their fantasized tidy little boxed arrangement of presumptions. I realize that they seem to desperately NEED their particular construction on reality to feel safe . . . that things are predictable, manageable. That may be touching in a sense of the word.

However, it's not a command I care to obey--to alter my construction on reality to cater to their insecurities and usually rather shrill demands that I conform my sensibilities and reality framework to theirs.

Of course, such types are on a continuum from not at all like that to extremely like that and everywhere in between--like most other human variables. I don't mind rattling the whole continuum if it results in their thinking a little more thoughtfully and objectively about their assumptions and so intensely held dogma.

I think the ideas in the OP are more right than wrong. The article was not as classy as I'd have preferred but that has long ago ceased to be an absolute criteria of truth for me.

Thanks for your kind reply.

Yes, I am aware that I seem to have a . . . quality . . . about me . . . that attracts assaultiveness. LOL. Don't seem able to do much about that--though it has caused me to work long and hard at refining my presentation of myself and my perspective--without losing spontaneity. Some trick! Most folks who have known me best and all those who have lived with me insist that THAT phenomenon is 99% other folks problem--generated. LOL.