This is the perfect example of how the deception works and very disturbingly, how willingly people will lie to serve their personal interests. Think about it: Anne Glover KNOWS that research shows unequivocally that GMOs harm people, yet she’s willing to blatantly lie about it because it’s her job. These people are no social outliers: this woman was the chief scientific adviser for the European Commission. Just read these two quotes:frankenfoods

Glover said: “If we look at evidence from [more than] 15 years of growing and consuming GMO foods globally, then there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health, or environmental health.”

“Glover has serious conflicts of interest that have led Member of the European Parliament and former French minister for the environment, Corinne Lepage, to call for her resignation. According to GM Watch, Glover is a shareholder in a biotech company, and her background is that of a business-savvy genetic engineer.”

The is the exact same thing that happens in regard to my own illness. Deniers completely ignore any data that refutes the story they want to tell. I’m not kidding: these people are lying about things that harm us in order to make money. These people should be tried for crimes against humanity.


Aspartame Is Deadly

There is a major push to convince people that aspartame is not dangerous. It is not based on factual information. It is based on deception and ignorance. I’ll point out just a couple of things aside from the doe-eyed gullibility of the media.

Real Clear Science. People will take this site’s word for it because they’re “scientific”. First red flag: “After extensive safety testing, aspartame was approved for use in Europe and the United States in the 1980s.” This is a complete misrepresentation of how aspartame was approved. It demonstrates the complete unreliability of the article. If that wasn’t bad enough, they appeal to Snopes to prove their point. The Snopes article is not written by a neurological expert and it doesn’t discuss the actual approval process.

That safety testing demonstrated that aspartame was devastatingly dangerous. Even the testing performed by Searle, the manufacturer, showed disastrously harmful health effects, and their studies were ridiculously mistake-prone in the process of trying to cover-up reality. This is how it was approved: Searle needed help to get past the clear toxicity of their product and they knew the only way was to circumvent the safety process and by getting it approved via the political process. So they appointed Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as their CEO. Rumsfeld was then appointed as part of Ronald Reagan’s transition team. At this point, a scientific advisory panel appointed by the FDA to decide whether or not aspartame should be banned was tied, 3-3. So Reagan’s newly appointed FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull broke the tie and it was approved. Hull would later be fired for impropriety and would go on to work at the marketing firm that represented Searle and Monsanto. He hasn’t spoken out about aspartame since.

This is a truth that must be understood above all else: studies are very easily designed to achieve the desired results. Money is the most powerful PR weapon on the planet. Money buys studies. Money buys sycophants. Money buys good press. Money sways opinion. And people are infinitely gullible. Yesterday they were lied to by so-and-so and today so-and-so’s claims are taken as gospel based on the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Authorities lie just as much as anyone else.

Aspartame is not safe. It never was found to be safe. It IS neurotoxic. It WILL cause neurological diseases like Parkinson’s Disease. Not in everybody, but in people like Michael J. Fox, who’s more than likely holding onto a can of diet soda. Ingest it at your own risk, but don’t swallow it with the lie that it’s safe.


The internet seems to be a place where self-appointed “skeptics” and “truth-tellers” let the rest of us in on their secrets. The scenario is less about the seeking of truth and more about the stroking of their egos. Some of them perform an enormous amount of research, as they must look long and hard to find information from outliers that refutes the truth. Others just perform superficial web-searchers and then put on airs of scientific intellectualism. In both cases, these people more often than not deliberately ignore contradictory data.

One of the most sickening examples of this is in the area of radioactive harm. I’ll just use the example of the Chernobyl accident. These people use very selective facts to paint a picture of much ado about nothing. Without going into details, the deaths from this accident is in the many 10s of thousands. And most sadly, the birth defects of children who were born to parents who were there are distressingly shocking.

In the past, I read a lot about the Chernobyl disaster and its aftermath and I don’t know what’s worse: the fact that there are people who KNOW of the true dangers or that there are people who make jokes about the “hysteria” of those of us who are concerned that the same exact thing can happen here or anywhere else where these power plants are. And I guess I can add the people who are currently latching onto every little detail of refutation about the potential dangers from Fukushima while ignoring the sobering findings by others who give us fair warning.

I don’t remember the more thorough sites that tell the stories of these poor kids so I’m just going to provide a link to a search where you can see some of the pictures. They are horrific. And I like to suggest that these people who are so convinced that we have nothing to worry about to go tell these kids that their lives are worth it so the rest of us can have cheaper energy.

Chernobyl Birth Defects

Beautiful place, isn’t it? It’s the quintessential tropical paradise. People were actually lucky enough to call this place home. Until the Americans came, named women’s bathing suits after the islands, and then “requested” that the inhabitants leave to so we could “conduct a few tests”.bikini_atoll

You’ll have to pardon my little project here. I do have a sense of justice and I like to learn about cases of injustice and share them with others. One personal interest is in the injustices that are carried out in “our interests”. I know there are other countries that have poor human rights records. But we will never have the credibility to point our fingers at them until we look in the mirror and acknowledge our own human failures. Honesty and integrity are woefully lacking here. And we DO have the ability to effect change in our own land if enough of us cared about it. There’s nothing wrong with being an idealist. There IS something wrong with being a denialist. Anyway. On with the story.

We told the Bikinians that the move would be temporary and that we would take care of them. The people fully expected that we would perform a few tests and they could very soon return home. Little did they know that we would literally vaporize some of the islands into nonexistence. Little did they know that, even though we knew prevailing winds would be carried to their new “temporary” home, we went ahead with testing anyway, causing immediate radiation sickness, all manner of illnesses, miscarriages and stillbirths, and slowly lingering deaths. They could not conceive of our capacity to lie and ruin lives. To this day, residents of The Marshall Islands contend with very high rates of cancer in a sun-drenched location that should be virtually free of it.

“The promises [the Americans] made will always be remembered by our people. They told us . . . “Never mind if you are living on a sandbar or even adrift on a raft at sea. We will take care of you as if you are our very own children.” . . . We believed them, and in a way we were happy that they would be taking care of us. The world was a strange place for us then. We just couldn’t understand why they wanted our island, we just knew that we had to follow their requests.”

We placed them on an island that could not support them, so within months, Bikinians were starving to death.

“Many times even the ships refused to stop and unload supplies for the island. . . . The Americans . . . forgot about their responsibilities to us, and again we found ourselves starving. We were full of worry and near death. Their promises were once again not ringing true.”

“Our job [on Rongerik] was to go fishing . . . It was horrible. We’d get a few fish, then the entire community would have to share this meager amount. . . . The fish were not fit to eat there. They were poisonous because of what they ate on the reef. We got sick from them, like when your arms and legs fall asleep and you can’t feel anything. We’d get up in the morning to go to our canoes and fall over because we were so ill. . . . Then we started asking these men from America [to] bring us food. . . . We were dying, but they didn’t listen to us.”

The fallout wasn’t limited to the local population and food chain. Radioactive fallout was measured in cattle as far away as Tennessee. And this was no surprise to us. Documentation proves that we knew of the dangers.

It isn’t as though we didn’t know what was going on. But we didn’t do anything about it until we started to get bad press. A former secretary of the interior who became a newspaper columnist wrote about the Navy’s “arrogant injustice to a native people”. Can we come to any other conclusion other than the idea that we have a pathological tendency to view indigenous populations as being lesser people?

The harm and neglect isn’t limited to the Bikinians of course. Japanese fishermen and our very own servicemen were placed in harm’s way. This is typical of our neglectful treatment of servicemen though. It was our responsibility to — at the very least — monitor these men for signs of radiation poisoning in order to properly treat them. And of course, if we’re going to make human guinea pigs out of them, we could at least use the information to understand the pathologies of radiation poisoning such that we could help others.

People have to excuse me for my less-than-panicked reaction to illegal immigration. Part of it sort of has to do with the idea of hypocrisy. Of course, everyone knows what we did to Native Americans. “That was a long time ago” is the thought with which we assuage our guilty consciences. Well, what we did to these people goes far beyond any concept of illegal immigration because not only did we enter their country without any sort of proper paperwork or sense of legality or decency, but we kicked out the residents and destroyed it. We stole their homes and destroyed them. One of the world’s most glorious places of natural beauty. Bombed in our quest to come up with ways to kill as many people as we can.

Folks. This is what I’m talking about when I point out the liars out there defending the indefensible. Once again we have the American Council on Science and Health, defending the disastrous poison DDT. It would be hysterical if it didn’t succeed in duping so many people.

The story here is that India has a big problem with malaria and they’re being hauled on the carpet for their unsuccessful eradication efforts. Gilbert Ross from the ACSH just loves to take an opportunity he can to rub people’s faces in the dirt.

“If the toll is not one million but ten million, this certainly should be brought to everyone’s attention.”

Yes “Doctor” Ross. Let’s bring this to everyone’s attention!

“The anti-chemical activists running the UN’s Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, a small coterie stubbornly clinging to the baseless belief in ‘Silent Spring,’ should take careful note of the real horror that they’re visiting on people in the third world, especially children, by continuing to oppose the use of DDT to prevent malaria.””

Paging Dr Ross! Your cynical use of “the children” doesn’t go unnoticed here, as your organization has gone on record claiming that arsenic, lead, and asbestos are just a-ok with the kids. But the problem is that INDIA NEVER BANNED DDT. THEY ARE THE WORLD’S LARGEST PRODUCER AND USER OF IT! That’s right: DDT is not only deadly; it doesn’t work!

The internet has popularized debate. It has also popularized the rules of debate, i.e., the avoidance of using logical fallacies. The trouble is, a lot of the people who harp on the logical fallacies of others are inclined to use fallacies themselves. The worst case of this by far was a man named Jonathan Safarti. Safarti is a physical chemist who posts at a Christian apologetics website called Answers In Genesis. The website specializes in scientifically proving creation and rebutting atheists. I read it for quite a while. The information there was convincing to me, but there was something that ate at me: I knew that I was potentially easy to convince because I don’t have a background in the relevant sciences. I had to take the words of the men who wrote articles there, but I didn’t really have a whole lot to prove to me that they had enough integrity to justify my faith in what they said. Safarti was extra convincing because of his strict adherence to pointing out the logical fallacies of others and presumably, having the unwavering insistence of avoiding illogic himself. But the only way I’d really know is if I could somehow engage him in a topic that I was familiar with. Enter politics and foreign policy.

Foreign policy is a subject that I’m familiar with, though my awareness has waned a bit recently. I went to the Answer In Genesis facebook page and found some of the followers there posting the typical Christian American fearmongering and lying about foreigners. I joined in. Sure enough, Safarti joined in as well. This guy proceeded to indulge in the fallacy that he points out the most in others: elephant hurling, which is the introduction of any and everything that randomly pops into one’s mind because one is getting buried with facts from one’s opponent. I was floored at how desperately this guy was throwing topics around but more worrisome: at how wrong and unChristian his venomous hatred was. I responded very specifically to what he posted. I didn’t stray. But that didn’t stop the moderator, Carl Weiland, from stepping in and deleting some of my posts. His claim was that I was going off topic, which was preposterous, because I was just responding to what his minion was posting. The truth was that I was burying Safarti in the debate. He was pathetically ill-prepared for it. Sadly, some of the followers of the page were posting comments about me suggesting that I was a Satanist. I was arguing from the point of Christ-like love. From his command that we love everyone. From God’s COMMAND that we not lie about people. They objected to the fact that I was saying that we have no business of killing other people and that we must take a good hard look at ourselves in the mirror and stop engaging in policies that violate Christian principles.

It was disgraceful and disappointing. I could no longer use Answers In Genesis as a reliable source of information. Whether they are right or they’re wrong, I just don’t have the expertise to know and they proved themselves to be willing to lie and fabricate until the cows came home.

Now onto a subject that is more relevant to the problem of MCS: Stephen Barrett, from Quackwatch. Most people already know about this cretin’s vicious campaign against the victims of MCS and a host of other sufferers of disease. It’s worth pointing out that sufferers of fibromyalgia have escaped his abuse because his daughter has the disease. And the apple didn’t fall far from that tree because his daughter is just as disgustingly cruel as her father. It’s worse of course, since as the sufferer of a life-destroying disease, she’s willing to cast doubt and aspersions on the sufferers of other diseases. They’re really despicable creatures.

So in addition to lying in books, on the internet, and in public forums, Stephen Barrett has lied in numerous courts of law and been thrown out as a result. In fact, there are so many facts that point to Barrett as catastrophically ill-suited to being the self-proclaimed gate-keeper of medical science that he is, that one wonders how anyone with any brains is willing to sully his reputation by associating with him in any way. One of the ways Barrett manages to keep followers is by using a certain amount of factual information in his writings. That isn’t hard to do. I can proclaim the blueness of the sky, the fact that breathing helps keep us alive, and that getting a broken leg fixed at a hospital are reasonable things to do. Keeping his writing chock full of facts leads people to believe that he slavishly adheres to fact with EVERYTHING. But he doesn’t. He slavishly avoids facts when lying about other people. The trouble is: do we address his writing? That’s very easy to do. Just read the first page of his ridiculously poorly researched book, “Chemical Sensitivity: The Truth About Environmental Illness ”. It is so unprofessionally written that it would be laughable if he didn’t constantly pay search engines to keep it at the top of search results, helping to keep our disease “controversial” in the process.

So again: do we address his writing or HIM? When attacking HIM, I’ve been accused of the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks. Well, my attacks are ad hominems, but they’re not logical fallacies. That’s because ad hominem attacks are not always logical fallacies. Sometimes they are very appropriate points of argument. Take Barrett for instance.

Barrett fashions himself as “the media”. He fashions himself as THE gate-keeper of medical science. The problem is, he has proven himself willing to lie. That is a valid reason to distrust what he says, but it doesn’t discount what he says automatically. After all, he’s a physician, right? Wrong. He gave up his medical license long ago. Now why would a doctor give up his license? Because of the expense of keeping it current. But don’t doctors make a lot of money? Well yeah, if said doctor can maintain a job. Trouble is, in his history as a physician, Barrett has been unable to keep a full-time job. Have you ever heard of a doctor who couldn’t hold a job? Me neither.

Why can’t he keep a job? From his dismissive, condescending behavior, I would infer that he didn’t have the greatest of bedside manners. As a psychiatrist, that would be important. That’s just speculation though and with Stephen Barrett, I don’t have to resort to speculation. Let’s talk about another thing he’s famous for: he failed the certification exam that he took to be a board certified psychiatrist. That’s pretty bad, don’t you think? Of all the medical sciences, psychiatry has got to be the easiest, right? Right. His response is this though: the certification exam was not a requirement to be a psychiatrist. Fair enough, but who cares? The guy chose to take the test and he failed it. Why did he fail it? Again, in his own words, he failed it because he did poorly on the neuroscience portion of it. You know, the kind of things he claims to be a gate-keeper about. He failed the science part of the test. That’s a pretty big problem, but even more problematic is the reason why: because it didn’t interest him! Extrapolating from his background then, we can assume that he chose the field of psychiatry because it was the easiest of the medical arts because it was the least scientific.

Very clearly, Stephen Barrett’s arguments don’t need to be addressed; his blatant incompetence and disinterest do. He has embarked on a campaign to destroy the scientific process as it endeavors to understand a devastating illness. And he has even embarked on a campaign to prevent REAL doctors from treating it, as he has contacted the FDA to harass treating physicians like William Rea in Texas. These physicians don’t have patients complaining, but Barrett files complaints anyway. He doesn’t have a problem with unethical physicians as long as they tow the AMA/industry line. How do I know that? His partner in crime: Ronald Gots. Gots co-wrote Barrett’s book about MCS. Gots was also the subject of a television piece about his business. Gots’ business was a company that reviewed disability claims. And wouldn’t you know? Every single claim that the television network got its hands on was a denial. What a coincidence! This guy who puts out a book denying disabling diseases had a company that denied disabling diseases! He was also involved with the bogus Environmental Sensitivities Research Inc. He is also involved in International Center for Toxicology & Medicine. Gots is not a toxicologist, yet he claims to be a specialist in medical toxicology. He is a pharmacologist. Hardly an appropriate background for the claim of specializing in toxicology. Apparently he doesn’t realize that toxicology is its own field of study. His only “qualification” for toxicology is that he is a doctor who gets paid by corporations to deny chemical injury claims. How admirable.

There is an interview online from 2005. At the time, Gots’ ICTM included on its staff two physicians (who knows if Gots is really a physician. How many lies are we expected to believe?). One of the physicians was an internal medicine and occupational medicine specialist and the other was an opthalmologist. And these guys had a company that specialized in toxicology. Why would ANYONE take these guys seriously? Because they want liars. Currently Gots’ bogus company is comprised of himself and two nurses. Apparently there are no toxicologists who are willing to sully their reputations by associating themselves with Gots.

Do you want to know how bad Gots is? Johns Hopkins university once had him co-chair a Continuing Medical Education symposium about MCS. The medical school was investigated, reprimanded, and put on probation for a year just for having Ronald Gots involved. That’s how much of a disreputable scumbag the guy is.

The bottom line is this: as long as these two disreputable con-artists have been involved in this business, they have undoubtedly been exposed to the factual data that proves our disease to be real (as though we should even be having that discussion). Yet despite the fact that they know the disease is real and ruining lives, they choose to take money for ensuring that people suffer more and longer than they need to. This is no exaggeration: these guys are at the bottom of humanity, populated by tyrannical despots, homicidal maniacs, and the like. They have zero credibility and as such, ad hominems are not logical fallacies: they are valid arguments against taking what they say seriously.

As an aside, the man who took Gots to task for that MCS symposium was attacked by a whining, petulant Gots who accused Albert Donnay of “ad hominums” (sic).

As another aside: I did a search about Gots and was taken to a website called atlanticlegal.com. My browser wouldn’t take me there. It said it was “an untrusted connection”!


Selective Skepticism

Here is an example of deceivers who consider themselves the gate-keepers of science. In it, the author makes sure to present a very skewed side of the story and ignore the other side. There are two problems:

1) Western medicine is assumed scientifically proven. This is not true. Years ago, the British Journal of Medicine embarked on a study of western medical interventions to see how effective they were. By the time they got to 2400 interventions, they found that 52% had either unknown efficacy, no efficacy, or were harmful. Where is the science that supports these interventions? I think the BMJ secretly abandoned the study as it was very obviously problematic for far too many people for many reasons. I’ve got the report on a hard drive somewhere, but it’s very hard to find on the internet.

These “junk science”, “evidence-based medicine”, and “science-based medicine” proponents, along with their coattail-riding “skeptics” ignore this fact: most western medical procedures are not studied using their phony standard of the randomized double-blind study. Clearly, western medicine is not using this form of testing. One reasons is that testing is very expensive, which is one reason why alternative practitioners don’t use it. But here’s a question: how do you do a randomized double-blind study on various surgical interventions? You can’t. That’s why there are about 40 other kinds of valid scientific testing methods out there. But these people use this standard as a way to “prove” alternative medicine has no merits. It’s dishonest, but it works. They’ve inculcated this idea that any alternative procedure MUST be proven with randomized double-blind studies, while western medicine gets a pass.

2) The author raises problems with Chinese medicine. Some of the criticisms are valid, some are not. He criticizes acupuncture because the Chinese (allegedly) are wrong about why it works. What he doesn’t acknowledge is it DOES work. We KNOW it does because they performed randomized double-blind studies to prove it. He also ignores other Chinese medical interventions that we know work. Here’s an example:

There is a modern medical procedure that is remarkably successful, if rather distasteful. It’s called Fecal Microbiota Transplantation. American physicians are marveling over how successful it is. Well guess what? The Chinese have to doing it since the 4th century.

Make no mistake about it: there are all sorts of charlatans out there in alternative medicine land. Skeptics actually use that as “proof” that alternative medicine does not work. No, it doesn’t make any sense. But that doesn’t matter. As is usually the case, these people are interested in winning arguments, not in finding the truth. That’s because they make conclusive proclamations about things that we cannot possibly know yet. And when the evidence points in the direction that they were wrong, it brings down their illusive self-reverential house of cards.