RSS

GcMAF (Gc Macrophage Activating Factor)

10 Aug

GcMAF [courtesy Google Images]

GcMAF
[courtesy Google Images]

A fascinating story is developing concerning a protein called “GcMAF”.  This protein is naturally produced in you body and is claimed to be critical to maintaining your natural immunities against hundreds, perhaps thousands, of diseases (including cancer, inflammation and even autism).

Atlhough GcMAF has been studied and even prescribed by doctors in other countries, the US pharmaceutical industry wants it banned from the US markets.  The Belgium-based Anticancer Fund warns that,

 

“GcMAF has not been properly studied in clinical trials and its laboratory results still need to be confirmed independently. So far, all claims on the efficacy of this product have no solid scientific basis. Its marketing is illegal; therefore there is no controlled guarantee on the quality of the product for human consumption sold over the internet.”

When it comes to the validity of any claims for medical or health care products, I’m reminded of an old definition for a “Canadian Gold Mine”:  “A hole the ground surrounded by liars.”

Americans are so obsessed with their health that there can be billions of dollars in profits associated with any new health care product.   One of the results of such enormous potential profits is that it’s always hard to perceive who’s the biggest liar–those who advocate a new health care product (to make new profits) or those who try to discredit it (and protect existing profits).

(If we could separate health care from billions of dollars of profits, we might actually be able to get healthy in this country.)

•  The current story concerning GcMAF is given credence because it allegedly involves the deaths of at least five “holistic health doctors” over a period of four weeks and the disappearance of five more.

However, two of these “holistic health doctors” were chiropractors and their links to GcMAF aren’t instantly apparent to me.

But three other now-dead doctors were clearly associated with GcMAF.  At least one charged that childhood vaccines were linked to destroying a child’s ability to produce and maintain GcMAF in his body throughout his life and thus made children more susceptible to autism, illness and premature death.

If vaccines are shown to suppress the natural production of GcMAF, billions of dollars in profits for pharmaceutical firms may be lost and some medical researchers, corporate executives and FDA regulators might be subject to civil or criminal charges.  The opportunity for conspiracy theories is substantial.

The five deaths in four weeks makes the conspiracy theories seem credible.

There may be dozens, even more, of YouTube videos on the subject.  Here are three.

I recommend that you take the time to watch all three videos–not simply because they might be evidence of conspiracy theories greater than those surrounding the JFK Assassination, Oklahoma City Bombing and 9/11–but because the whole concept of GcMAF may be one of the most important discoveries relative to your health seen in the last 100 years.

•  The first video is 7 minutes long and offers a brief introduction to the evidence of conspiracy surrounding the five deaths.

 

•  The second is a longer (27 minutes), more extensive and more emotional explanation concerning the health significance of GcMAF and the conspiracy implications of the five deaths.  If you need to get your blood boiling, this is the video to see.

 

•  The third video is of a speech by an English executive and/or doctor from a European clinic that dispenses GcMAF.  This is the longest (47 minutes) video, the most “professional,” least emotional and perhaps the most “educational” from a non-conspiratorial, health-care perspective.

 

 

 
24 Comments

Posted by on August 10, 2015 in Conspiracy theories, Health Care, Video

 

Tags: , , ,

24 responses to “GcMAF (Gc Macrophage Activating Factor)

  1. Colin

    August 10, 2015 at 10:07 PM

    [T]wo of these “holistic health doctors” were chiropractors and their links to GcMAF aren’t instantly apparent to me …. The five deaths in four weeks makes the conspiracy theories seem credible.

    Why do they make the conspiracy theories seem credible? You acknowledge that two of them don’t even appear related, which means we’re talking about three deaths, not five. And the evidence for those three being the result of a conspiracy is pretty terrible. What do you think is the best evidence for a conspiracy in this case?

     
    • Adask

      August 11, 2015 at 4:49 AM

      Dear Colin McRoberts,

      I don’ think there is “best evidence” of a conspiracy. I didn’t say that I thought the conspiracy theory was credible. I said that the several deaths added credibility in some other people’s minds that a conspiracy might exist.

      In fact, I implicitly warned that even if the conspiracy theory turned out to be false, the health implications of GcMAF were so substantial that the videos should be viewed and considered.

      Nevertheless, I know that my notions about conspiracy theories might not be instantly apparent to some of the dim bulbs who work for the government and therefore deny the credibility of all conspiracy theories. (It’s usually a “lone gunman,” isn’t it? There can’t be a conspiracy if there’s only one shooter, right?)

      Therefore, for the sake of those who don’t have eyes to see or ears to hear, allow me to elucidate on what I see as some of the “logic” for supporting a conspiracy theory in this matter:

      One doctor was definitely involved in GcMAF research and critical of vaccines. He was found shot in the chest and floating dead in a river just a couple of days after the FDA raided his clinic. That death seemed suspicious because:

      1) The death occurred just two or three days after the doctor’s clinic was raided by the FDA;

      2) So far as I know, because the doctor’s body was found floating in a river, the actual site of the death and gun used to kill the doctor, have not been found;

      3) The coroner (a government official who, as such, is never to be trusted) ruled that the doctor’s death was a suicide;

      4) Shooting yourself in the chest (rather than in the head) seems like an unlikely choice for anyone wishing to commit suicide;

      5) We are left to wonder if the doctor not only shot himself in the chest (presumably while he was standing on land, a pier or on a bridge etc) but then intentionally fell or walked into the river. If he shot himself in the chest, shouldn’t he have crumpled instantly to the ground where he was presumably standing and then been found at the place where he shot himself? The gun used should’ve been in his hand or close to the body. Did he intentionally walk out into the river before he shot himself and thereby cause his body to float away? If so, why?

      6) Was the doctor an avid pool player who sought to create two mysteries with one bullet? Did the doctor not only shoot himself in the chest, but calculate where his body would fall so as to insure that his body would fall into the river and float away? Did he even allow for “English” on the bullet?

      7) Why did the doctor intend to not only shoot himself but also make his body disappear in the river? What did he really want to do–die or disappear? If he mostly wanted to disappear, why kill himself? Why not steal a car and drive into Mexico, etc.? If he didn’t want to disappear, why make his body fall into the river?

      8) Being a medical doctor, he should’ve known exactly where to shoot himself in the chest (presumably in the heart) to make an instant death of it. If he shot himself in the chest and then intentionally walked or staggered into the river, that’s evidence that his aim was surprisingly “un-doctor-like” in that he didn’t hit his heart and didn’t die instantly from a bullet. If the doctor really tried to commit suicide with one shot to the chest but survived that shot and spent his last energy staggering into the river, why didn’t he use that same energy to put the gun to his head and fire a second round into his brain? He he preferred to die slowly by drowning rather than quickly by gunfire, why didn’t he just attach a concrete block to his ankles, jump off the bridge and dispense with any need for a gun?

      There is something very strange about a suicide who shoots himself in the chest and whose body winds up in a river. How the doctor’s body got into the river is a mystery.

      It’s almost as if a second or third person was present at the suicide and hauled the doctor’s body to the river after he died. If there was a second or third person at the doctor’s death, was the death really a suicide or was it murder? The probability that the doctor both shot himself in the chest (rather than the head) and then caused his body to fall into a river seems small.

      Throw in a a raid by the FDA and research into vaccines that could cause Big Pharma to lose millions, perhaps billions of dollars in profits, and you have the makings for a fine conspiracy theory–or even a Hollywood script. (In fact, the doctor’s suicide story would have almost as much Oscar potential as your own story about having voluntarily de-activated your license to steal (Bar card) while you still owe tens of thousands of dollars on your Harvahd college loans, so you could spend time with the woman you love but don’t much talk to anymore because you’re hanging out on this blog. You could get rich based on the popcorn sales, alone.)

      But then–ta-da!–add in a couple more mysterious doctor deaths and the conspiracy theory (that the FDA or Big Pharma raided and then murdered the first GcMAF doctor) becomes so delicious that almost no one can resist.

      NOW do you understand why I said the several alleged deaths (in addition to the first doctor’s death) would add credibility to the conspiracy theory? If one “holistic doctor” dies, we may or may not have a valid conspiracy theory. If several “holistic doctors” die in just four weeks, the evidence of a conspiracy seems almost irrefutable.

      Perhaps you should watch more Sherlock Holmes movies. On the internet, they’re free, y’know. Then, you, too, might be better able to dissect and understand conspiracy theories.

      Having more deaths adds credibility to a conspiracy theory in the same way that having a degree from a prestigious law school adds credibility to unfounded assertions about the law.

      If you find my explanation of why additional deaths would add credibility to any conspiracy theory to be unpersuasive, ask “Lance Pearce” (or whatever name he’s using this morning) to explain it to you.

       
      • Colin

        August 11, 2015 at 4:22 PM

        I didn’t say that I thought the conspiracy theory was credible. I said that the several deaths added credibility in some other people’s minds that a conspiracy might exist.

        Thanks for clearing that up, I misunderstood your point. Given how the rest of your response seems to focus on reasons to believe a conspiracy exists, I think it’s easy to see how I could be confused.

        Therefore, for the sake of those who don’t have eyes to see or ears to hear, allow me to elucidate on what I see as some of the “logic” for supporting a conspiracy theory in this matter:

        One doctor was definitely involved in GcMAF research and critical of vaccines. He was found shot in the chest and floating dead in a river just a couple of days after the FDA raided his clinic. That death seemed suspicious because:

        1) The death occurred just two or three days after the doctor’s clinic was raided by the FDA;

        Is it more likely that this is because of a giant conspiracy to raid and then murder him, or that he was distressed because he’d just been raided? The latter seems much, much, much more likely to me. After all, why would a giant conspiracy raid and then kill him? Why not just do one or the other? On the other hand, we know people do, tragically, commit suicide after setbacks. This seems like very thin speculation upon which to base a belief in a giant, murderous conspiracy. But then, conspiracy theories are nothing if not castles built on thin speculation.

        2) So far as I know, because the doctor’s body was found floating in a river, the actual site of the death and gun used to kill the doctor, have not been found;

        So what? I took out the trash and washed the dishes this morning, so solid physical evidence that I ate cereal for breakfast will never be found. That’s not a good reason to suspect that I ate ball bearings and wood shavings for breakfast. Absence of evidence is not evidence of a remarkable event.

        3) The coroner (a government official who, as such, is never to be trusted) ruled that the doctor’s death was a suicide;

        Isn’t this letting ideology substitute for evidence? Is that likely to lead you to true beliefs, or to believe in things that are ideologically convenient?

        4) Shooting yourself in the chest (rather than in the head) seems like an unlikely choice for anyone wishing to commit suicide;

        How do you know? How often do suicides shoot themselves in the chest? This, again, is thin speculation. I don’t think either one of us knows what likely choices for suicides are; suicides by definition are making choices that the rest of us find incomprehensible.

        5) We are left to wonder if the doctor not only shot himself in the chest (presumably while he was standing on land, a pier or on a bridge etc) but then intentionally fell or walked into the river. If he shot himself in the chest, shouldn’t he have crumpled instantly to the ground where he was presumably standing and then been found at the place where he shot himself? The gun used should’ve been in his hand or close to the body. Did he intentionally walk out into the river before he shot himself and thereby cause his body to float away? If so, why?

        Speculation upon speculation upon speculation. Why would he crumple to the ground? Why wouldn’t he drift with the water, or stumble a few steps? Why wouldn’t the gun roll away, or fall in the water and be carried away, or be taken by someone who found the body, or a combination of the above? Again, you don’t know what’s most likely or what happened; “I don’t know” is a better, and truer, response than “this is evidence of a secret murder carried out by FDA commandoes in black helicopters.”

        6) Was the doctor an avid pool player who sought to create two mysteries with one bullet? Did the doctor not only shoot himself in the chest, but calculate where his body would fall so as to insure that his body would fall into the river and float away? Did he even allow for “English” on the bullet?

        7) Why did the doctor intend to not only shoot himself but also make his body disappear in the river? What did he really want to do–die or disappear? If he mostly wanted to disappear, why kill himself? Why not steal a car and drive into Mexico, etc.? If he didn’t want to disappear, why make his body fall into the river?

        Maybe he didn’t want to leave a large mess for someone else to clean up. Or maybe the river had some personal significance to him. Really not that much of a mystery, to be honest.

        8) Being a medical doctor, he should’ve known exactly where to shoot himself in the chest (presumably in the heart) to make an instant death of it. If he shot himself in the chest and then intentionally walked or staggered into the river, that’s evidence that his aim was surprisingly “un-doctor-like” in that he didn’t hit his heart and didn’t die instantly from a bullet. If the doctor really tried to commit suicide with one shot to the chest but survived that shot and spent his last energy staggering into the river, why didn’t he use that same energy to put the gun to his head and fire a second round into his brain? He he preferred to die slowly by drowning rather than quickly by gunfire, why didn’t he just attach a concrete block to his ankles, jump off the bridge and dispense with any need for a gun?

        Why didn’t he call a suicide hotline? Why didn’t he take pills instead of using a gun? Why didn’t he go to vet school instead of medical school? Trying to second-guess his choices is diverting, perhaps, but not good evidence of a conspiracy. Especially when the guesses are so tenuous. (Why didn’t a man shot in the chest have the presence of mind to shoot himself again? Well, perhaps shooting yourself in the chest is very distracting!)

        There is something very strange about a suicide who shoots himself in the chest and whose body winds up in a river. How the doctor’s body got into the river is a mystery.

        Is it? Or is it just that you, personally, don’t know all the details?

        Throw in a a raid by the FDA and research into vaccines that could cause Big Pharma to lose millions, perhaps billions of dollars in profits, and you have the makings for a fine conspiracy theory–or even a Hollywood script.

        More supposition! I have not seen anything that would support the belief that he was doing research that would cost anyone money. He didn’t seem to have made, or be on the edge of, any particular breakthroughs. What makes you think he was going to disrupt the field of medicine?

        And even if he was, why would that make the FDA murder someone? The FDA doesn’t profit from medicine. Its employees are bureaucrats, not corporate murder ninjas. Can you imagine how enormous this conspiracy would have to be? Hundreds of people in on the murder of someone who wasn’t even a blip on the radar, for no particular reason that would benefit the FDA. It’s a bizarre piece of speculation.

        But then–ta-da!–add in a couple more mysterious doctor deaths and the conspiracy theory (that the FDA or Big Pharma raided and then murdered the first GcMAF doctor) becomes so delicious that almost no one can resist.

        Here I think you’ve hit it right on the head. It’s not that these fantasies are probably true, it’s that they’re fun to believe. The problem comes when people lose sight of what’s probably true and what’s an entertaining fantasy.

         
      • henry

        August 30, 2015 at 9:39 PM

        A paradigm is a cognitive framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of any discipline or group. Thomas Kuhn was a philosopher who coined the term paradigm shift. He thought that the people who accept a paradigm will hold the truth of the paradigm as an article of faith. Any evidence that may conflict with the obvious truth of the paradigm is set aside as something that is either not true or irrelevant. The discussion here seems to show a conflict in paradigms.

        One paradigm holds that pharmaceutical companies do research to solve health problems. The FDA ensures that the new pharmaceutical products are safe and effective. Medical doctors talk to their customers and determine the best FDA approved product that resolves their health problems. A different paradigm in the same area holds that some very rich people control the pharmaceutical companies, the AMA (that trains medical doctors), and the FDA. In a sense, they are farming us. They milk you and shear you and make you pull the wagon and when you cannot produce for them, they will give you a disease and extort all the money that you have so that you can get a little more life. This paradigm also holds that the power elite do not want individuals to escape from their control so they demonize anything but allopathic medicine, vaccines, and GMO foods. People of each paradigm hold the people of the other paradigm(s) as either stupid or evil.

        There are paradigms in the legal area also. One holds that people cannot manage their own life. They need help from experts and government acts as a parent. Legislators creates laws that help people live together in peace. Police and regulators enforce these laws. Prosecutors do their best to see that those that they deem to be law breakers are punished. Judges ensure that the process is fair. Private attorneys help those who cannot manage the complexities of the legal system. The other paradigm holds that governments are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of each individual. An individual is free to do anything he/she wants so long as they don’t interfere with the rights of others. If there is a conflict of rights, governments gets involved. Legislators create laws to resolve known area of conflict. The other roles pretty much are the same as in the other paradigm except the jury members have the right to determine the facts and the law of the case.

        Those inculcated into a paradigm, profit from their participation in its institutions. It is a difficult decision to risk losing their status to even look at other points of view.

        What I find interesting is that 10 years ago the people who think that the FDA is a tool to disempower the individual were considered to be on the “left” and those think that the nanny state/police state is a tool to disempower the individual were considered to be on the “Right”. The paradigms seem to be shifting. The individual empowerment paradigm includes those opposing the FDA and the UN-American police state. Those supporting both the FDA and the police state are also creating a super paradigm.

         
    • Bart Shavitz

      August 15, 2015 at 2:30 PM

      Colin,
      Who came up with the idea that Juries are incompetent to hear “certain evidence”? What kind of evidence is said to be the kind of evidence Juries are incompetent to hear? This seems to diminish the so called power of a Jury.

       
  2. Roger

    August 10, 2015 at 11:05 PM

    For what it’s worth, some sources report that the body of Dr. Bradstreet was found floating in a river, which if true would make suicide seem unlikely.

    While we’re on the topic, I wonder if someone can confirm or debunk the epidemiological case made at the following URL arguing vaccination is a junk science deserving little or no credit for the decline of disease.

    https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs

     
    • Mika Thane

      August 10, 2015 at 11:33 PM

      The Rocky Broad River where Dr Bradstreet’s body was found is a shallow fast flowing rocky stream. It’s unlikely his body was “floating”, or was found far from where he died. The most reliable information we have to date is from the police detective who actually attended the scene. No doubt more information will come to light in due course.

       
    • Toland

      August 11, 2015 at 3:07 PM

      Interesting link, Roger. So far no takers.

      Hopefully someone qualified to offer a (substantive) opinion on that blogger’s argument (not his personal qualities, etc) will do so.

      Meanwhile here is a page on the cancer research of Dr. Gonzalez, who reportedly was working along similar lines as Dr. Bradstreet and turned up dead two days after Bradstreet…

      http://jeffreydachmd.com/nicholas-gonzalez-md-and-the-trophoblastic-theory-of-cancer

       
  3. Mika Thane

    August 10, 2015 at 11:21 PM

    Where is there any evidence that any of these doctors and chiropractors – apart from Dr Bradstreet – were involved with recommending or using GcMAF? This aspect of the story appears to be made up.

    The “English executive and/or doctor” is David Noakes, who has no biomedical qualifications or training at all. He claims that his business was bringing in five million pounds a year, mainly from sales over the Internet of his unproven supposed cures for cancer, autism, HIV, and just about any medical condition you can name. He is not qualified to offer medical advice, his claims of successful treatments are implausible and unverifiable, and his financial interest in generating sales is obvious. Before he was pushing GcMAF he was pushing an earlier bogus cancer “cure” called DCA. He doesn’t seem very credible to me.

     
    • Adask

      August 11, 2015 at 5:14 AM

      You’re probably right. As I wrote, medical health care products are like “Canadian gold mines”–a hole in the ground surrounded by liars (and sometimes lawyers).

      It’s hard to tell who’s lying and who’s telling the truth.

      But some superficial research suggests that the foundation for the GcMAF claims might be valid and therefore people should consider the subject.

       
      • Mika Thane

        August 11, 2015 at 8:01 AM

        I don’t want to dismiss out of hand the possibility that GcMAF might one day prove to have real therapeutic uses. But I think we can be pretty certain that the extraordinary claims made by people currently flogging the stuff over the internet and making millions as a result are all, or nearly all, bullshit.

        I’ve checked out the published science over a number of years, and the claims are at best unimpressive and at worst look like your bog-standard criminal health scam (of which there are thousands on the internet).

        The basic clinical “studies” on GcMAF were published by a guy called Yamamoto in the mid to late 2000s. They have – to say the least – very serious problems. He lied about who he said funded them. The Japanese institutional review boards that supposedly provided oversight for the human trials do not appear to exist. His “institution” that supposedly performed the research, the “Socrates Institute For Therapeutic Immunology” has only ever existed on paper. It is possible or even probable that much of the data reported in his papers was simply made up. None of the patients who experienced the remarkable cures described in his reports, or the doctors who supposedly supervised this treatment, have ever been found.

        http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org/q/gcmaf.pdf

        The subsequent published “studies” are nearly all by individuals who own or are employed by the main company promoting internet sales of GcMAF. The “chief scientific officer” of the company, for example, was struck off the medical register in Italy last year after a long investigation. He appears to have been practising medicine without accreditation in Switzerland until their unregistered clinic was shut down by Swiss police early this year, after five deaths.

        http://www.24heures.ch/vaud-regions/lausanne-region/Clinique-privee-sous-enquete-penale-apres-cinq-morts/story/12349881

        The directors of the Dutch company doing their pathology testing were arrested and charged with fraud and money laundering last year.

        http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/alternative_medicine_testing_l/

        The unregistered laboratory producing the product was raided and shut down by health authorities in the UK this year as well.

        http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridgeshire-laboratory-raided-unlicensed/story-25981305-detail/story.html

        There are huge numbers of red flags around this operation. The problem is that people with serious diseases like late stage cancer are often desperate enough to ignore those red flags, and are easy pickings for snake oil salesmen promoting “miracle” cures online, and the elaborate but evidence-free conspiracy theories which are part and parcel of the sales pitch.

         
      • Adask

        August 11, 2015 at 9:15 AM

        There’s the problem. How do we discern between the lying profiteers who will sell and promote anything that can make a fast buck, and the FDA regulators government agents who lie in order to suppress new means of curing diseases like cancer, stroke, heart attack, Alzheimer’s, etc. in order to sustain existing profits?

        There’s too much money in health care to trust anyone who is either selling something, or trying to prohibit the sale of something.

        Who is telling the truth, and how can we tell?

        It seems to me that the only way to know about GcMAF is to try it yourself or watch what happens when someone close to you who is very ill tries it. If it works for you or someone you love, I’d say you can know that it’s for real. On the other hand, if you try and it doesn’t work, you’ll have reason to know that it’s a fraud.

        But the FDA is telling us we can’t try it in the US. Based on their intelligence, science and integrity, the FDA is telling to trust the FDA and don’t try to us GcMAF. But is the FDA really trust-worthy? Lots of people don’t think so.

        More, so far as I know, GcMAF hasn’t caused any significant adverse side effects. So, what would be the harm in letting me try a couple of vials. Yes, it might be nothing but quackery. But if it is, and if there’s no evidence that it’ll harm me, why not let me prove the quackery to myself by trying a couple of vials of GcMAF? Where’s the harm?

        I think that everyone agrees that the FDA relationship to Big Pharma is so strong that the FDA’s claims about different drugs are just as likely to be false as the Englishman talking in that third video. Is the FDA restricting our access to GcMAF because its quackery? Or because it works and would badly diminish the profits of Big Pharma?

        If there’s any way to avoid the creation of conspiracy theories, it’s by means of enjoying the freedom to take any drug that might cure our diseases.

        The FDA will let almost any drug be used so long as it only treats “symptoms,” but the FDA will vociferously restrict or attack any drug that claims to provide a “cure“. For the most part, Big Pharma doesn’t provide cures–it only treats symptoms since an uncured disease will produce symptoms throughout a person’s life. Selling drugs to control “symptoms” is a good business model. Selling drugs that “cure” diseases can quickly put a Big Pharmaceutical corporation out of business. Who can the sell to, if their prospective customers are “cured”?

        More, the fundamental issue at the FDA is not whether a drug works or not, but whether the manufacturer of a drug expressly claims that the drug will “cure” a disease. Much of the FDA is not about chemistry or biology–it’s about advertising and use of the word “cure“. Does that make sense to anyone? Should we be confident in the FDA if it’s principle goal is control advertising rather than to determine if a new drug is or is not truly beneficial?

        The whole field of medicine and drugs is so littered with fat paychecks and fraud, that it’s almost impossible to know who you can trust.

         
      • Mika Thane

        August 11, 2015 at 8:09 PM

        “Who is telling the truth, and how can we tell?”

        I think the only way is by examining the evidence. The story circulating on the internet is that the deaths of four other health professionals (or up to eight, depending on which account you read) were connected with that of Dr Bradstreet because they were all working with GcMAF. But I’ve yet to see any evidence that ANY of them were, apart from Dr Bradstreet: the story seems to have begun with someone’s speculation and been embellished and turned into “fact” by the frequent retelling online, in the same manner as campfire stories.

        “It seems to me that the only way to know about GcMAF is to try it yourself or watch what happens when someone close to you who is very ill tries it. If it works for you or someone you love, I’d say you can know that it’s for real. On the other hand, if you try and it doesn’t work, you’ll have reason to know that it’s a fraud.”

        Well, I don’t think that’s the only way to know if a product claimed to treat disease is both safe and effective for the purpose. Again, they key is to look at the verifiable evidence, and furthermore when it comes to products with claimed therapeutic benefits I think it should be incumbent on the seller to provide such evidence, not on the buyer. Otherwise, anyone can market anything they like, provided they can come up with a convincing enough spiel – and unfortunately it doesn’t take too much to convince people to part with their money if they are desperate enough. By the time the truth comes out the seller has moved on to the next “miracle” and the next market, pocketing the cash as he goes. This has been the business model of snake oil salesmen since time immemorial.

        “If there’s any way to avoid the creation of conspiracy theories, it’s by means of enjoying the freedom to take any drug that might cure our diseases.”

        Perhaps, but such a freedom would necessarily imply the right of anyone to market any drug they like with whatever claims about safety and efficacy they think they can get away with for a while, regardless of whether such claims are true or not. When it comes to Big Pharma, the requirement that they provide verifiable evidence about the safety and effectiveness of their products is a vital check on their bad behaviour. I wouldn’t like to see that restriction lifted.

        I think the best way to avoid the creation of conspiracy theories is to critically examine the “facts” on which they rest.

         
  4. Lance Pearce

    August 11, 2015 at 1:40 AM

    2nd Peter 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking anyone he can to destroy He does this through his followers/agents. He wants to DESTROY ALL of mankind. John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

     
  5. Toland

    August 11, 2015 at 6:11 AM

    The Washington Post says this…

    “On the afternoon of June 19, a fisherman spotted Bradstreet’s lifeless body lying in the Broad River in the tiny town of Chimney Rock, N.C. He had a gunshot wound to his chest, authorities said. A gun was found in the water nearby.”

    So who was the gun registered to? That detail should be easy for the police to look up and would reveal a lot.

     
    • Henry

      August 11, 2015 at 6:26 AM

      Good idea, but North Carolina does not register firearms.

       
      • Cody

        August 11, 2015 at 1:41 PM

        That’s funny. The ATF can find the original purchaser of the firearm by locating the dealer that sold it and rifling through the FFL’s 4473s…

         
      • Toland

        August 11, 2015 at 3:08 PM

        Good idea, but North Carolina does not register firearms.

        Ah so, I didn’t know that. You’re right though, I looked it up and it’s actually a state law that no government agency can maintain a firearms registry.

        I guess the point here is, if the gun was Dr. Bradstreet’s why hasn’t this fact been reported, since it would silence the conspiracy speculation?

        Unless of course there was no gun found and this detail was simply invented.

         
      • Colin

        August 11, 2015 at 4:07 PM

        Or the conspiracy speculation is simply below the radar of the mainstream media outlets, or the media don’t know whose gun it was, or he borrowed the gun from a friend, or any one of a hundred other reasons.

        At the end of the day, though, why would the media report something in order to quash conspiracy theories? if there’s one thing we know about conspiracy theories, it’s that facts don’t suppress them. Look at this article: Alfred admits right off the bat that at least two of the five suspicious deaths seem utterly unrelated to any pattern… then immediately goes on a tear about five suspicious deaths being indicative of a conspiracy.

        The old saw is true. To a conspiracy theorist, all possible facts are confirmation of the theory. Evidence consistent with a conspiracy is proof the conspiracy is real. Evidence inconsistent with a conspiracy is just proof that the conspiracy is powerful enough to doctor the evidence.

         
      • Toland

        August 11, 2015 at 4:51 PM

        Or the conspiracy speculation is simply below the radar of the mainstream media outlets, or the media don’t know whose gun it was, or he borrowed the gun from a friend, or any one of a hundred other reasons.

        This is so. It’s possible there is nothing going on here beyond the surface. However, I agree with Al that there is enough odd about this whole situation to warrant a closer look without a foregone conclusion.

        The old saw is true. To a conspiracy theorist, all possible facts are confirmation of the theory. Evidence consistent with a conspiracy is proof the conspiracy is real. Evidence inconsistent with a conspiracy is just proof that the conspiracy is powerful enough to doctor the evidence.

        Doesn’t your position imply that no jury should ever find someone guilty on a charge of conspiracy, because the prosecution’s argument, being in support of a conspiracy theory, is necessarily invalid if not outright nutty?

         
      • Colin

        August 11, 2015 at 5:20 PM

        Doesn’t your position imply that no jury should ever find someone guilty on a charge of conspiracy, because the prosecution’s argument, being in support of a conspiracy theory, is necessarily invalid if not outright nutty?

        No; to secure a conspiracy conviction the government has to produce evidence to support the claim. I think that’s a good standard!

        In other words, it’s not that any evidence of a conspiracy should be disregarded. Rather, I’d say that we should actually see some evidence before taking conspiracy theories very seriously. Or, at the very least, facts that can’t be easily explained through more likely and innocuous explanations.

         
  6. Peg-Powers

    August 11, 2015 at 4:18 PM

    Talking about FAT profits and huge FRAUD! —–On Monday three tobacco companies in Canada were handed a court JUDGMENT of over 15 billion dollars, an amount which sets a historical record! This compensation is to go to 100,000 class-action smokers in Quebec. This verdict means that there was knowledge and cover-up concerning the laboratory testing results regarding cancer-causing effects of nicotine and other harmful drugs placed in tobacco products and the warning labels were inadequate for the average Joe.

    Seems to me this verdict is 50 years too late……and too little.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s