NaturalNews / Mike Adams a Credible Resource?

Hi Nan,

Oh, no - don't get me wrong.  I have read those studies about Vitamin D deficiency and a breast cancer link, and actually I think I got several of them from you a while back, so I do appreciate that.  I do delieve there is some component of correlation between Vitamin D and breast cancer, and in fact I was very deficient myself and am taking D supplements based on the evidence-based research and the advice of my medical oncologist.

My issue is with Mike Adams' irresponsible exaggerations and outright misinterpretations of the research that he himself cites.  I've looked and looked, but have not found ANY evidence-based research that says Vitamin D prevents 77% of all types of cancers, as he asserts in his article on "Breast Cancer Deception" [I've intentionally left out the link, as I don't want to add to his click-based wealth!].

In the Natural News article I'm referring to, it isn't quite clear exactly which study Adams is using as a source, although it seems if you register for his marketing you'll be able to read the full press release of the study he's citing.  

By the details he has given, it appears to refer to this study abstract:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556697?dopt=Abstract  (which is based on study NCT00352170 from www.clinicaltrials.gov and ironically lists GlaxoSmithKline as the collaborator!)  Never mind that GlaxoSmithKline is one of the "Big Pharma" villains that Mike Adams regularly bashes. In any case, I can't find anything in either the study itself or the abstract, that mentions 77% of cancers prevented or risk reduction.  Can anyone point me to the facts?  Most of the Google hits lead right back to Mike Adams and/or one of his many many unreliable websites.

Everything I can find mentions that Vitamin d can provide UP TO a 77% RISK REDUCTION for cancer, which is vastly different than saying that it prevents 77 percent of all cancers! Once again it boils down to semantics, I guess.

Althea's post about Adams' statements re: Patrick Swayze is another perfect example.  I'm increasingly convinced that Mike Adams carefully chooses his words to be inflammatory, controversial, and likely to increase his traffic to his wealth-producing website networks.  I don't think he knows or cares a whit about vitamin D, patients, cancer, health, or anything other than his own bank account, and it really bothers me to see people propagating his drivel as credible health resources.

Nan, I do absolutely agree with you that we all need to decide for ourselves what is credible and what is not.  I do hope we can be objective and truthful in our posts here, which could potentially influence a fellow breast cancer patient's treatment choices. 

...Anybody?  Surely some people must think NN is a credible resource, right?  I see so many references to NaturalNews, Mike Adams, The Health Ranger, etc., that I wonder if I'm missing something.  If anyone cares to share, I'd really like to hear your opinion of whether you consider him a legitimate source of information, and why or why not.

Hi Molly4,

You say "...Natural News gets information right a lot of the time with verifiable sources. Is there some reason you don't want to evaluate Natural News on its merits one article at a time?"

In my opening statement on this thread, I indicated that the reason I was even looking at Mike Adams/Natural News was my interest in vitamin D and breast cancer, and here is what I found:

"For one thing, vitamin D has been shown to prevent 77 percent of all cancers! This is a nutrient that's available free of charge because it's actually manufactured by your skin in response to sunlight. Recent research shows vitamin D to be such a powerful anti-cancer nutrient that when it's circulating in your blood, it halts the growth of virtually ALL cancer tumors, regardless of the type of cancer in question."  

This is precisely what I'm asking - how is the above statement getting information right, and what, exactly, are the verifiable sources?  

How about evaluating another of NaturalNews' articles on its merit?  Let me pick just one out of the 23,000 they say they have published in the last 5 years.... how about this one called " Apricot Seeds Kill Cancer Cells without Side Effects?"  It's about laetrile (B17/amygdalin/cyanide[!]), and I can't find any evidence, whatsoever, that they "did their homework."  Where are the verifiable resources to support such a sensational title? 

All my research for evidence-based research of laetrile shows:

-Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (www.mskcc.org) : "Bottom Line: Amygdalin (Laetrile) has toxic side effects and has caused decreased survival in cancer patients. " 

-National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov):  "No controlled clinical trials (trials that compare groups of patients who receive the new treatment to groups who do not) of laetrile have been reported.  Although many anecdotal reports (incomplete descriptions of the medical/treatment history of one or more patients) and case reports (detailed reports of the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of individual patients) are available, they provide little evidence to support laetrile as a treatment for cancer."

-FDA Poisonous Plant Database :  "ABSTRACT: Laetrile's commercial success appears to stem from the understandable desperation felt by patients with advanced cancer coupled with testimonials extolling its benefits. Furthermore, in such patients, there may exist distrust of modern therapy and the ill founded belief that natural medicines are at least less toxic, if not more effective, than conventional medicines. When discussing laetrile therapy with doctors or patients, pharmacists should bear the following in mind: 1. Laetrile is a part of alternative therapy and is often resorted to when all else fails. 2. Emotions and hope, not knowledge, may well be the reasons for resorting to such alternative therapy. 3. Evidence to date shows that laetrile is neither safe nor effective. 4. Some preparations on the market have been analysed and shown to be unfit for human use. 5. Resorting to natural sources (apricot kernels) introduces the problems of non uniform dosing, as a consequence of natural variation of the contents, and the simultaneous ingestion of the enzymes that promote the rapid release of hydrogen cyanide. 6. The symptoms of chronic cyanide poisoning are not fully understood. 7. Laetrile therapy may shorten the patient's life expectancy. 8. Laetrile may be a carcinogen.

-The New England Journal of Medicine:  " No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement or stabilization of cancer, improvement of symptoms related to cancer, or extension of life span. The hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range. Patients exposed to this agent should be instructed about the danger of cyanide poisoning, and their blood cyanide levels should be carefully monitored. Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment.

-U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health : "CONCLUSION: Therefore, the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data."

Need I go on?   Of course I don't have to read the articles, and could ignore them.  Unfortunately, it's not in my nature to allow blantant misinformation to go uncontested.  I think about how vulnerable I felt (and still do!) with my sudden diagnosis of aggressive breast cancer.  I think about how a lot of people I know, in my situation, would probably take the words of these so called "nutritionists, health advocates, supplement experts," to heart and use them to base their treatment decisions on. 

Of course, a surprising number of people I know still forward me silly emails about all manner of internet hoaxes, scams, frauds, chain leters, and urban legends!  It scares me to think that if one of my naive but well-meaning friends or family members was diagnosed with breast cancer, they might actually buy into some of the "cures" and "treatments" I keep reading about here that have no merit at all and may actually be dangerous or even life-threatening.  

Honestly, I'm really not trying to be argumentative just for the sake of being contentious. 

Nan, I don't doubt the sincerity in your efforts, but you're actually making my point for me!  The blurb you posted above refers to a 77% CANCER RISK REDUCTION, which is worlds different from saying "...PREVENTS 77 PERCENT OF ALL CANCER,"  .and I don't doubt for one second that it is a typo or an innocent mistake.

That's exactly my point - Mike Adams takes legitimate research and exaggerates and sensationalizes it into a twisted and mis-translated headline that is sure to attract website traffic (i.e. increase his revenue). 

.....<sigh...>