Quack of the Day: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski

Cancer.  Just the word itself causes people to gasp as they wonder if it will impact them or their loved ones.  If you ask a typical person about their families, chances are they have lost at least one person close to them from cancer, or they may have fought cancer themselves.  In fact, it is estimated that over 40% of the public will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes, so there is good reason to be concerned.

Cancer can impact everyone.  It impacts both men and women, both young and old, and members of all races.  In some cases, if detected early, cancer can be treated and the cancer can be considered to be in remission.  In other cases, a late cancer diagnosis which has metastasized to numerous parts of the body can essentially be a death sentence.  Although treatments have improved and death rates have fallen, there is still no known cure.
Because of this, it is not uncommon for people to fear cancer.  It is not uncommon for cancer patients to try every possible treatment known to man even if some of those treatments are experimental or unproven.  It is also not uncommon for medical conspiracy theorists to proclaim some random doctor or self-proclaimed cancer expert has a miracle cure that can treat cancer patients or that this miracle cure is being suppressed by "Big Pharma", the FDA, AMA, CDC, WHO, or some other random government agency.

This is where Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski comes into play.  Burzynski has positioned himself as a victim.  He claims he can treat and in many cases even suggests he can cure cancer, but because his treatments would negatively impact the pharmaceutical companies or mainstream cancer treatment centers (and thus suggesting it would harm their bottom-line), he is being unfairly targeted and muzzled from speaking the "truth" about cancer.

Thus, Burzynski has decided the best way to get his message out to the masses is to star in a movie about himself to share his story, and of course like all the other alternative medicine mockumentaries prior, the movie serves no legitimate scientific benefit and is heavily biased.  Of course the glaring lack of peer-reviewed science or supporting evidence is irrelevant to a medical conspiracy theorist, and as such the alternative medical proponents such as Lowell Hubbs have latched on to this little film as evidence of some massive conspiracy.  They will even go so far as to cite it as a legitimate source of data, and they will refer to the film as if it was a true unbiased and scientifically supported documentary. 

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that Mr. Hubbs would be a fan of Burzynski, because Mr. Hubbs is a fan of pretty much anyone who labels themselves as a practitioner of alternative medical therapies, or anyone who has ever positioned themselves as the antithesis to mainstream modern medicine.  Thus, true to form, Mr. Hubbs has inundated my inbox with comment after comment bragging about Burzynski and his miracle cancer cures.

Burzynski himself isn't exactly new to the cancer scene, and he has been involved in his research for around 35 years.  Burzynski focuses upon what he calls "antineoplaston therapy" and he offers his treatments at his clinic located in Houston, Texas.  Initially, Burzynski was extracting these antineoplastons from urine he collected from the restrooms in public parks (which is why Mr. Hubbs has stated in the past that a doctor was able to cure cancer by extracting a substance from urine), but later Burzynski synthesized the antineoplastons in a lab as it was obviously much easier, and much less expensive.

It should be noted that antineoplaston therapy has never been approved by the FDA, and Burzynski has published no peer-reviewed science in support of his treatments.  Burzynski has been approved to perform FDA testing on his treatments, yet to date, no phase III randomized, controlled trials of antineoplastons as a treatment for cancer have been conducted.  Ever.  Read that again - in the 35 years that Burzynski has been performing clinical trials on antineoplastons, no phase III randomized, controlled trials of antineoplastons as a treatment for cancer have been conducted.  This means that Burzynski has never performed a study to compare his antineoplaston therapy against more conventional therapies, and it doesn't appear he has any immediate plans to do so.

Burzynski has actually performed some clinical trials, namely phase I and phase II trials, yet the results of those trials remain unpublished.  Out of 61 clinical trials listed under Burzynski's name, 50 of them are in an unknown status, seven have been withdrawn, two were terminated, one is not yet recruiting, and in one single case, Burzynski has actually finished his phase II clinical trial.  So out of a total of 61 trials reported in the past 35 years only one has been finished, yet where is the peer-reviewed science showing the magical results?  The reality is, 60 of the 61 trials listed are phase II clinical trials, and the only phase III trial listed is the one that states it is not yet recruiting.  The information was submitted in December 2010 with a start date listed as December 2011 and a completion date of December 2015, yet there haven't been any updates and it appears it still pending as "not yet open for participant recruitment".

Based upon this information, we only have one single study to focus upon, and that was the phase II trial that dealt with how well antineoplaston therapy works in treating patients with progressive or recurrent stage IV melanoma.  The trial was started in 1996 and shows as completed in 2005, so what is the explanation on why the results haven't been published?

If the results don't prove that antineoplaston therapy is effective, then why is he continuing to promote it?  If the results do suggest that antineoplaston therapy is effective in treating cancer, why hasn't the data been published for all to see?  What purpose does it serve to suppress data if he has faith in the outcome of his clinical trial?  The fact is antineoplaston therapy is still considered experimental, so why is Burzynski promoting it as a legitimate treatment even before publishing results of his own studies?

As you can see there are a lot of questions, but Burzynski doesn't appear to be offering many answers.  It seems that although he can't legally treat patients with antineoplaston therapy, he can enroll them into one of his many clinical trials, so this little loophole has allowed Burzynski to operate his clinic for 35 years even though he has never published any results from those trials in any reputable peer-reviewed journals.  One might assume that such a "visionary" would want to share his treatments and clinical results with the world in order to have an honest impact upon the future of cancer treatments... but alas that doesn't appear to be the case with Burzynski.

Of course Burzynski is no stranger to controversy or the courtroom either.  He has been involved in various court cases since at least 1983, ranging from violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to  fraud to... well more fraud.  It seems most recently, Burzynski has found himself being investigated once again by the Texas Medical Board, although that case is currently pending and a hearing is scheduled for April 2012.

It also appears that Burzynski doesn't take kindly to people challenging his viewpoints.  In cases where someone calls out his nonsense, he has staff members send them threatening email messages as he recently did to Rhys Morgan in response to a blog posting Mr. Morgan published.  He also did the same to Le Canard Noir (Andy Lewis) for a post he wrote entitled The False Hope of the Burzynski Clinic and he did the same to Peter Bowditch. 

I'm sure there are others, but perhaps if Burzynski would spend as much time focused upon producing scientific data as a result of his neverending clinical trials rather than chasing after random bloggers who happen to think he is a fraud or a quack, he might actually get somewhere.  Then again, it is safe to say if the results of his ongoing trials were actually impressive, we would have read about them decades ago.

It would seem when you really examine the data, Burzynski simply doesn't have the science or research to support his viewpoints, and I find it disturbing that he promotes the myth that he can so easily cure cancer without any scientific basis to make such a claim.  He gives cancer victims and family members false hope, and he hasn't shown his treatments are effective at anything other than shrinking the size of a person's bank account.

I of course could go into much more detail about Burzynski, his impressive claims, his lack of scientific data, and his little movie, but why repeat what has already been done?

1. Stanislaw Burzynski: Bad medicine, a bad movie, and bad P.R.
2. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy”: Can he do what he claims for cancer?
3. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, antineoplastons, and the selling of an orphan drug as a cancer cure
4. Quackwatch: Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons"
5. Dr. Saul Green's Letter to the Washington Post
6. The Compassion Gambit

Of course if you are really, really interested - here is a list of blogs which speak about Burzynski, his treatments, his lack of published science, and much, much more.

All of this aside, claims that a miracle cure exists for cancer won't even hold up against common sense.  Cancer is not just one lone medical condition that responds to a one-size-catch-all treatment.  Cancer encompasses many different forms of the disease which all present themselves differently and which respond to treatments differently.  To suggest there is any one treatment that can so easily cure so many various forms of cancer immediately raises suspicion.

If such a cure was readily available, and if such a cure actually worked the medical insurance industry would be spending tens of millions of dollars to ensure the studies were fully funded and that the treatment was in widespread use. Conventional cancer treatments can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or even more, yet Burzynski's antineoplastons can be synthesized and are available from medical suppliers for as little as 80 cents per dose. Doesn't that seem like something the insurance industry could get behind in order to drastically slash their costs and improve their profits?

Either way, we find ourselves in familiar territory here because once again we are being told the only reason these miracle cures aren't in widespread use is because there is some conspiracy at work.  Burzynski staff members, medical conspiracy theorists, alternative medical gurus, and "Internet researchers" are quick to list any number of excuses on why Burzynski's hypothesis have yet to be published or why there is no peer-reviewed science supporting his claims, but at the end of the day that is just what they are... excuses.

The reality is antineoplastons have been studied elsewhere outside of Burzynski's clinic, and yet there have been no indications that they work as well as Burzynski has claimed.  Japanese scientists at the Kurume University School of Medicine have studied antineoplastons as have researchers from Mansoura University in Mansoura, Egypt.  Their results generally reflect a lack of activity, however that isn't to say there isn't any benefit to them at all or that continued research is worthless, but the current reality is they are not a miracle cure as we have been led to believe. 

If antineoplastons are really as effective as Burzynski claims, or if they are a viable cancer treatment, then by all means Burzynski has the option... or rather the duty, to publish his findings for all to see.  I think we all know why that hasn't happened - and it has more to do with keeping the steady flow of scared, ignorant patients coming through the doors year after year than it does from his research somehow being suppressed or manipulated.

Meanwhile people continue to die from cancer each and every day while proponents of complimentary and alternative medicine (CAM) attempt to convince us that cancer can be cured via unproven treatments and snakeoil. 

Some people have no shame... and unfortunately in this case that lack of shame leads to false hope, increased suffering, and unnecessary expense.

Andrew Moulden: Even More Quackery

I have discussed Andy Moulden at few times in the past (see here and here), but considering the number of visits these pages receive in any given week I felt it was my moral obligation to share a bit more about Mr. Moulden and his "miracle treatments". 

The following information was taken directly from Moulden's "brainguard" website before he took it down (or perhaps before he was forced to take it down).

Originally found at: http://brainguardmd.com/ (website no longer available):

Due to the overwhelming response to our services, we will not be able to offer these services for free anymore. There are certain costs associated with diagnosing people who have neurological damage, and we need to be able to cover these expenses. For those that have already received our services please comment on our Brain Blog, so others know that we know the who what why and when your child has been affected.

Sorry for the inconvenience
Dr Andrew Moulden BA, MA, MD, PhD

As you may already know if you have read the previous posts about Moulden, his "services" include performing diagnoses on patients based upon a cursory review of photographs and/or videotape.  Now I'm not suggesting that anyone should work for free, but if you are going to charge for a service, it stands to reason the service you are charging for should be legitimate, and diagnosing neurological disorders from afar based upon nothing other than a photograph is far from legitimate.  Is there really any wonder why Moulden was shut down?

It gets even better however.  Care to take a guess on what Moulden was charging for his "services"?  Fear not as there is no need to guess.  Moulden actually disclosed the fees right on his website:

$416 for the basic analysis of 2 videos and 4 photos, i.e a form email reply.

Forensic Proof Causation
Limited Medical review and direct phone contact, history with an M.D.
$2500 CDN

Help FIX My Vaccine Injured Brain
Limited Medical review and direct phone contact, history with an M.D.
- If we don't help "fix" the problem you don't pay
- Includes before/after scanning and assessment to document and quantify intervention success.
- Voluntary services 100% Biocompatible (no synthetic drugs)!
$5000 CDN

EMERGENCY BrainGuard Scanning
Continuous Streaming Video BrainGuard Scanning
$10,000 CDN

So basically the fees range from a bit over $400 for Moulden to glance at a child's pictures or video, to $10,000 Canadian to perform an "EMERGENCY" BrainGuard Scan.  You know that must be worth it though, because he took the time to ensure the term "EMERGENCY" was written in all caps.

I have to wonder how many people fell for this little sales pitch and how much money Moulden actually made before he was shut down by the Canadian government.  It seems not only is he using unconfirmed diagnostic tools that he appears to have invented himself, and that he is diagnosing children with ailments he has also invented himself, but it also seems as if he was attempting to practice medicine without a license. 

Of course the fun doesn't end there.  On top of the fees disclosed above, Moulden was also engaging in what can only be described as a real-estate scam.  Moulden was pushing people from his website to buy what he labeled an "AMassNetwork IMAM-12 membership".  This additional membership was required before any BrainGuard services could be ordered, so I assume the cost for this membership would be in addition to the costs disclosed above.  The only place to get the membership was at another one of Moulden's websites (http://www.amassnetwork.com/ which like his other websites is no longer available) however I was unable to locate any information on what this membeship would cost.

Moulden did however share this little gem:

IMAM-12 membership entitles you for up to 1% (buy/sell) off real estate sales brokers fees across more than 40 countries (this equates to $3000 on a 300,000 property).

I would love to explain the relationship between neurological disorders, snakeoil medical treatments, and discounts on real estate broker fees.... but honestly I have no idea what the connection would be.  This would equate to a Cardiologist telling you that if you undergo a cardiac stress test in their office you will be entitled to $8 off an oil change at any Toyota dealership.  There just isn't any relation between the two offers and any self proclaimed "doctor" who uses such sales gimicks should be ashamed of themselves.

Then again, if these people were capable of shame, websites and unscientific claims such as these wouldn't exist in the first place.

Quack of the Day: Jenny McCarthy

Just remember... she wants to be known for her brain.

If anyone has spent more than ten minutes researching autism, they are bound to come across Jenny McCarthy during their searches.  It isn't because McCarthy is influential or educated.  It isn't because she has done research on the subject nor is it because she has contributed to the field of knowledge that surrounds autism.  Rather the reason McCarthy's name seems to go hand in hand with autism is because she is a celebrity... and as such that gives her access to people like Oprah Winfrey or Larry King, and it also allows her to get her "story" published in People magazine or various supermarket tabloids.

The reality is if McCarthy wasn't a famous Playboy Playmate or B-list actress, nobody would bother to listen, but because she is rather well known, that (for whatever reason) has convinced certain media figures that her story is worth repeating.

So what is the story she is so willing to tell?  Well essentially McCarthy claims vaccines cause autism and these same vaccines in turn harmed her son Evan.  She also claims she was able to reverse Evan's condition and "cure" his autism via a mixture of good old fashioned hard work, truckloads of love, and some miracle biomedical treatments.  Of course McCarthy has zero scientific evidence to support her theory that vaccines cause autism, and in fact when she originally published her book and started going around the country trying to convince others that she was more knowledgeable on the subject than any of the thousands of doctors and scientists who work in the field every day.... there were no less than ten different published studies that had tried to examine the supposed link between vaccines and autism and not a single one of them had ever found even so much as a casual link.

Oh well... science really isn't that important right?  Surely a former Playmate knows more about complex scientific subjects like vaccines than those who spend their entire careers studying them.  We should just accept the fact that McCarthy is right and that all of the experts are simply out of touch.

The irony in this entire situation is that Jenny McCarthy is very much anti-science, yet science is responsible for her most famous assets (her silicone enhanced chesticles).  So apparently she trusts science when it comes to such important matters as enlarging her breasts, but science goes out the door when it comes to her son.  Check.

It is probably worth noting that many experts believe that Evan was actually misdiagnosed in the first place and that he never actually had autism.  As it turns out, some of Evan's initial symptoms were tied to seizures he experienced, and after those seizures were treated his condition improved.  It has been stated that Evan's symptoms were actually more reflective of Landau-Kleffner Syndrome rather than autism and therefore any "cure" that Jenny McCarthy claims to have used has nothing to do with autism.  Other doctors have even suggested Evan had no medical condition at all and was merely developmentally delayed in comparison to his peers.

No matter what McCarthy seems to believe, it seems rather odd that her miracle cure hasn't translated so well.  We don't hear of hundreds or even thousands of autistic kids being cured, so it would seem slightly odd that her magic only happened to apply to her son and nobody else.  So aside from scaring parents away from vaccines, what else has Jenny McCarthy done with all of her anti-vaccination crusading? Go to this website to find out and read the sources...it is very interesting.

Jenny McCarthy Body Count

The basic premise is that as of the time this post was written, McCarthy has indirectly led to the deaths of 738 children which could have been prevented with proper vaccinations, and she has indirectly led to over 85,000 children contracting preventable diseases.  And in all that time what is the number of autism diagnoses scientifically linked to vaccinations???

ZERO.

Yes.... ZERO.

These are the ramifications when people ignore science, and while Jenny McCarthy could have chose to use her celebrity status to educate people about vaccinations and/or to help parents of autistic children come to grips with the diagnoses, she instead decided it was better to scare parents based upon personal opinion which has no scientific backing whatsoever.  Amazing.

Natural News: Another Website For Quacks

Recently, Mr. Hubbs thought it prudent to leave the following comment on an earlier blog post:

"[...] My site receives thousands of views per day world wide [sic]. My site pages are now even referenced to on Natural News, the second largest read alternative medicine and information website existing. Even the stupidity of your blog is referenced to on the N.N. page below. Check it out. How the medical monopoly hides inconvenient vaccine truths Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034012_vacinations_dangers.html" [...]  ~Lowell Hubbs

I had to laugh that NaturalNews couldn't even spell "vaccinations" properly in their URL (which tells us how knowledgeable on the subject matter they really are) but beyond that there are a few interesting points here.  Whether or not Mr. Hubbs cute little conspiracy theorist website gets "thousands of views" on a daily basis is doubtful... unless of course you count Mr. Hubbs own visits.  The reality of the matter is the traffic rank on Mr. Hubbs' website is 4,799,934.  To put that in perspective, the traffic rank for icanhascheezburger.com (a website primarily devoted to funny pictures of cats) is 2,711... which means there are approximately 4.8 million websites more popular that Mr. Hubbs' website, but yet less popular than random pictures of cats. 

Better yet, the ranking for cdc.gov is 3,014 which means there are only 4,796,920 websites standing between the CDC website, and Mr. Hubbs' website.  Heck even zapatopi.net (the aluminum / tinfoil hat wiki page) has a ranking of 539,607 which means there are only 4,260,327 websites less popular than tinfoil hats but yet more popular than Mr. Hubbs' website.  Yes... a website which is meant to be a joke and pokes fun at conspiracy theorists is ranked over four million pages higher than an actual conspiracy theorist.  Sort of puts things in perspective now doesn't it?  Oh and in the off chance you are curious, NaturalNews.com receives about half as many hits per month as a website devoted to photoshopped pictures of cats.  Seriously.

Not that website rankings really mean anything of course.  First you need to realize that search engines can (and often do) skew rankings do to how they catalog specific pages and how the automated bots perform searches.  Second, even if a website is "popular" it doesn't mean it is being visited by unique people.  It can be a handful of people (or bots) who cycle the page hundreds of times a day.  Third, popularity doesn't equal influence.  Websites that are controversial (or dare I say it)... even ignorant and silly tend to get hits out of morbid curiosity.  That doesn't mean they are influential.  One has to keep in mind the website devoted to two girls and one cup received millions upon million upon millions of hits... that doesn't mean people are going to repeat that practice at home.  (If you don't know what 2Girls1Cup is... be warned you do NOT want to google it and find out).

Hell even that stupid Rebecca Black "Friday" song received more than 175 Million hits.  Yes... over one hundred and seventy five MILLION views of that one single YouTube video.  Yet that video is well known to have exponentially more "dislikes" than "likes" which tells us one thing: Popularity does not equal agreement, (in fact even suggesting there is a link is a common appeal to popularity logical fallacy) and sometimes when something is popular it is merely because people are curious what all the fuss is about.

So, beyond the actual popularity (or lack thereof) what is the point of Mr. Hubbs?  He seems to be proud of himself that his website was linked in an article which is posted to NaturalNews.com... but is that anything to actually be proud of?

Truth be told ANYONE can write an article and have it posted to NaturalNews.com by filling out a simple form.  NaturalNews is a pseudoscience aggregating site and provided the article is written with an anti-science and pro-alternative medicine slant, it will most certainly be published.  There is no requirement that articles be fully sourced nor are there are any requirements the author even be a journalist.  Heck, NaturalNews even admits they don't provide editing services so the authors are pretty much on their own.  Mr. Hubbs himself can actually write and submit articles to them and they may even be published (assuming Mr. Hubbs can perform a basic spelling and grammar check before submission which could be his downfall).  There is no check of credentials, no verification of identify, and no attempt to determine conflict of interest.  The only requirement is that the author has a Google adsense account so they can collect ad revenue.  Red flag number one.

Is this how a reputable "news" website operates?  No.  Is this how a website operates when they are only concerned over aggregating biased materials in order to drive traffic to their website and in turn sell all types of advertisements, nutritional supplements, books, newsletters, gadgets and other alternative medicine swag?  You bet.  Red flag number two.

Did I mention that NaturalNews.com is NOT recognized as a non-profit in the US?  You read that right... they can claim to be non-profit all day long, but legally speaking they are not and the IRS does not recognize them as non-profit.  They can (and likely do) make millions from the sales of various supplements and gadgets most of which have never undergone any testing to prove efficacy.  This is part of the explanation for the disclaimers found throughout their website which remind you their products are "not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease".  Red flag number three.

So this brings us to the actual article that Mr. Hubbs cited.  I'd love to tell you a bit about the author, but "PF Louis" doesn't provide us with any background information about him or her.  In fact there is no byline information and nothing can be found on the NaturalNews website telling us about this particular author.  Red flag number four.

So aside from the 25-30 graphic advertisements shown in and around this article and ignoring the numerous unrelated links trying to get you to visit other quack websites (which in turn drives ad revenue based upon click-through rates) the article itself really doesn't contain any actual reporting.  It starts off by repeating a couple of quotes taken out of context, and inserts some opinions... but where is the actual reporting?

Of course what vaccine conspiracy article would be complete without an accusation that the CIA is helping "Big Pharma" control the media?  For good measure, Louis goes on to speak about the Rockefeller conspiracy (something Mr. Hubbs has been known to jabber on about quite often), and then Louis goes on to mention the Wakefield incident.... conveniently ignoring the fact that Wakefield was found guilty of fraud or that he fabricated patient records as well as glossing over the fact that Wakefield had a vested financial interest tied to the idea that vaccines can be harmful.  Oh how soon we forget... or in this case - ignore.

All of the above is interesting of course, albeit predictable considering we have seen this same pattern of grouping together various conspiracy theories, accusations, and opinions and presenting them as "journalism", but Louis is just getting warmed up.  Louis uses the last few paragraphs of this 'article' to bring up Andrew Moulden.  Note that Louis doesn't say "Dr. Moulden", but instead references him as "Canadian medical scientist Andrew Moulden, PhD".  Could that be because Moulden has no license to practice medicine?  Could it be because Moulden has no actual expertise in the fields of study surrounding vaccines or autism?  Or could it be because the terms "medical scientist" seem harmless enough to cover the work of someone that has never had a single one of this theories proven or even published in a peer-reviewed journal of any type?

I can't really say, but this is where Louis lack of credibility really shines.  He doesn't cite Moulden's work to validate his theories.  He doesn't cite scientific research nor does he reference the work of others to validate any of Moulden's views.  Instead, Louis claims that any doubt about Moulden's work shall be cast aside because (are you ready for this?) Moulden was listed as a "Quack of the Day" on this very blog.

Yes... you read that correctly.

This is what is so amazingly comical about so many of these alternative medicine bloggers and self-proclaimed "citizen journalists".  They don't even understand the basic premise of journalistic integrity and instead they spout off opinion that they don't even attempt to support with evidence.  Louis actually believes because I wrote a blog post about Andrew Moulden, that it somehow means Moulden must be credible.  I know... I can't exactly wrap my head around that type of logic either and it is nothing more than a guilt by association logical fallacy, but I'm flattered that my blog seems to be so darn influential within the NaturalNews community that I'm single handedly able to sway opinions.

Of course Louis couldn't be bothered to link to the blog posts of mine which he cites because that would be objective journalism, and not only is Louis incapable of journalism... it is obvious he/she is incapable of remaining objective as well.  Instead, the search of my site lead Louis to Mr. Hubbs, and it was a match made in heaven.  So I suppose if you are actually honest about the situation you would agree that if anything Mr. Hubbs should be thanking me for allowing him the recognition he so desperately was seeking, because without this humble little blog, Louis would never have found Mr. Hubbs silly website. 

Am I the only one who sees the irony here? 

I should thank good old PF though.  I noticed a spike in my blog traffic a bit over a week ago all based upon common search terms (various versions of "Andrew Moulden" and "Quack" etc) and I honestly had no idea what was causing it until Mr. Hubbs was so kind as to show me this "article".  So kudos to you PF... you not only directed a few of your fellow vaccine conspiracy theorists to Mr. Hubbs website, but you diverted a few of them my direction as well.  Of course more importantly, PF has shown the true colors of NaturalNews and how don't appear to care about facts or the quality of their content... only the quantity.

Lowell Hubbs: Quote of the Day

Every now and then, one of the comments Mr. Hubbs sends in is actually entertaining.  Most are filled with nonsense and chalk full of ramblings of a madman, but every now and then he says something which really makes you stop and think.  This is one of those times...

"Whats the problem Costner, you can read English. Do you not understand the most basic of common sense?"  ~Lowell Hubbs

I honestly don't even know what to say to this.  I guess I could just admit that yes... I can actually read English, but apparently Mr. Hubbs isn't much good with writing it.

Common sense?  Yea... not one of Mr. Hubbs' strong suits.  Yet he is the type of person who considers himself an expert on vaccines and science.  I guess that's one way to go.  Granted even if I overlook the errors in grammar to get down to the point which I believe Mr. Hubbs is trying to make, it still doesn't change anything.

The problem with Mr. Hubbs' logic is that "common sense" does not dictate fact nor does it influence scientific discovery.  Anecdotal evidence is just that... anecdotal.  For example if someone sees a child start developing symptoms of a learning disorder or sees them have a seizure, they may think it was because that child was given a vaccine a few weeks or months earlier because in their mind there were no other possible causes.  However that requires them to ignore million of other environmental and genetic causes.

I can understand how vaccines get the blame over something like genetics.  After all - parents don't want to think it could be their very own genes that led to a medical condition in their child.  Because of this, they look everywhere else around them in an effort to place blame elsewhere and if that just so happens to fall upon vaccines that makes them feel better.

The problem is, there is no science to support these viewpoints.  Not only are cases of autism or other medical conditions nearly identical in unvaccinated populations, but there is not a single piece of peer-reviewed science published anywhere nor is there a single study which has ever reached the conclusion that vaccines cause autism. 

Perhaps even more telling is that there has never been any peer-reviewed or reputable science that even suggested vaccines cause autism.  Ever.  Mr. Hubbs knows this, his fellow anti-vaccination friends know this, and the legitimate medical community knows this, which is why antivaxxers continue to try to move the goal posts and shift the debate time and time again as they attempt to ignore the fact their opinions have never been verified, validated, or even found to have any merit whatsoever.

So why are all of these parents so convinced that vaccines cause autism, and why are vaccine conspiracy theorists so sure that vaccines are harmful?  Well a lot of it boils down to them being ignorant to the scientific method, but much of it also happens to be due to them relying upon anecdotal evidence.  Since many cases of autism seem to be diagnosed during the ages of two and three, and because that time frame also seems to coincide with when parents are giving their children vaccines they (for whatever reason) feel vaccines are to blame.

They don't care they science doesn't support their viewpoint.  They don't care about the mounting evidence that reflects a strong genetic component to autism.  They don't care that they can't prove their theory or that unvaccinated children can still get autism.  They don't care about any of these things because they will tell you "they just know" vaccines are responsible, and no amount of science or research is going to be enough to convince them otherwise because their conclusions are based upon (you guessed it) "common sense".

Unfortunately for Mr. Hubbs and other vaccine conspiracy theorists like him, scientific fact has never been, and will never be determined by what one person believes is "common sense".  Instead, scientific theories are tested and replicated.  Hypothesis are validated or challenged.  Research is verified and reproduced.

This is why the anti-vaccination crowd will never be successful and why they will never be taken seriously, because instead of them wishing to find the truth they would much rather dabble in what they perceive as "common sense".  The ironic part is that anti-vaxxers don't seem to have any common sense... yet they put an enourmous amount of faith in it while ignoring everything else.

Quack of the Day: Dr. Russell Blaylock

Most anti-vaccinationists (aka: "antivaxxers") have a list of trusted “experts” they often refer to when speaking of vaccinations, and along with people like Andrew Wakefield, Joseph Mercola, or Sherri Tenpenny... Dr. Russell Blaylock is one of the most common names tossed out there anytime this subject comes up. This led me to ask myself what was it about Dr. Blaylock that was so interesting and why would antivaxxers trust Blaylock to provide medical advice about a variety of subjects when these very same people won’t accept the viewpoints or opinions of the vast majority of the medical community?

Could it be that Dr. Blaylock has produced some peer-reviewed studies that are able to determine the root cause of autism? No – because he has published no such studies.

Could it be that Dr. Blaylock has produced evidence showing long term negative side effects of vaccines? No – because he hasn’t bothered to produce such evidence.

Could it be that Dr. Blaylock has studied the long term negative side effects of the sweetener aspartame and has produced scientific evidence to support his theory that it is responsible for causing Multiple Sclerosis? No, because he has never bothered to produce evidence nor has he participated in research to support his theory.

Could it be that Dr. Blaylock has finally been able to produce evidence that his claims about the dangers of aluminum cookware, or fluoridated drinking water, or dental fillings are substantiated and verified? No, because he hasn’t bothered to produce the research, add his name to a study, or even be bothered to write unpublished papers detailing his claims in any detail.

So if it isn’t about evidence or fact, what is it about Dr. Blaylock that leads antivaxxers to cite him as an expert? The real truth is, the only thing antivaxxers appear to know about Dr. Blaylock is what is found on Blaylock’s website or published in Blaylock’s monthly newsletters. Their opinions aren’t based upon published research nor are they based upon proven science - but rather they are based upon self-cited opinion. In short, there are no legitimate third parties supporting any of Blaylock's claims, so citing his opinions is merely the equivalent of taking his word for it.

This is yet another example of how antivaxxers tend to believe anything that is said or written on the Internet provided it goes against conventional medical wisdom or proven and accepted science. Once again we have shown that a lack of critical thinking ability clouds the judgment and precludes many antivaxxers from understanding that just because someone makes a claim does not make it true.

Unfortunately this is a common pattern for many in the anti-vaccination community. They don't trust peer-reviewed studies or proven science, but they will believe a wild claim from anyone who calls themselves an expert on vaccines or medicine. Why is it that we aren't supposed to believe anything the CDC, FDA, WebMD, or any drug company tells us because they are all in it for the money but yet Dr. Blaylock is considered an expert even though he makes the majority of his income from SELLING his information?

Blaylock writes books and newsletters he can sell instead of studies that he wouldn't profit from even though studies would be more apt to influence other doctors and the medical and scientific community (and thus have a greater impact upon the actual patients).

If Blaylock was really serious about getting his message out there, why wouldn't he just post his articles and information on his website for all to see or (dare I say it) actually get one of his papers peer-reviewed so he can rub it in the face of the big bad drug companies? Blaylock claims he knows things the "major media" are afraid to tell you and he is providing "insider health information", but as with all snakeoil salesman of his type he is never able to actually prove his claims with real science.

But then again, why give information away for free when you can charge $48 a year for 12 emailed newsletters (or $54 if you want the hard copy version)?

So what else does Blaylock have to offer the public? You guessed it - Blaylock sells a 30 day supply of his "brain repair" pills for the low, low price of $51.25! Act now and he will toss in a free booklet with your first order!!

Seriously... you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. Time and time again we find this common pattern with the “anti-vaccine pundits” that antivaxxers just love to quote, and once again we find that when you scrape away all of the wild and unsubstantiated claims or the shocking one-liners meant to spark interest or designed to appeal to the fear of the public, at the end of the day they are nothing more than snakeoil pitchmen selling their nutritional supplements or newsletters or books or DVDs etc, etc.

This just goes to show how out of touch these antivaxxers really are. They won't accept scientific fact, but the first quack who offers to sell them some miracle "brain repair" drug is suddenly an expert on all things related to vaccinations. It is the oldest scam in the book... find an idiot and then convince him to buy a worthless product he doesn't need. Whether it be a Snuggie, a Shamwow, a new type of kitchen gadget, or a bottle of nutritional supplements it is all the same - these products are not designed to make life better but instead are designed for one purpose and one purpose alone... pure unadulterated American profit via the naive, uneducated consumer who doesn't know any better.

I guess poor old Dr. Blaylock couldn't make enough money from these morons by selling newsletters for $48 a year so now he has to sell them pills to fix their brains. Although in Blaylock’s defense, considering his target audience it is quite possible they are in need of brain repair much more than the general populace, so he may be on to something with this one.

I often wonder how many antivaxxers are on the auto-ship program to receive these miracle 'brain repair' pills every 30 days? For those that are, I'd ask for a refund because they clearly are NOT working as designed.

Meanwhile - I have no doubt that Dr. Blaylock is laughing all the way to the bank knowing full well that he has tapped a market of followers that have no interest in separating fact from fiction.

Note (November 2012): I've noticed this particular blog post has been receiving hundreds of hits lately and is being linked to from several online forums and websites. Because of this I have went back through and updated the post to refer to antivaxxers in general terms rather than citing a specific antivaxxer or group of antivaxxers. Considering the recent increase in interest of Dr. Blaylock, I felt this was probably more appropriate since the post should be about him and not about any one specific antivaxxer.

Quack of the Day: Alan Phillips

As mentioned previously, Mr. Hubbs thought it was a good idea to cite the work of Alan Phillips, because Hubbs felt Phillips was qualified to write on the subject of vaccines.  Thus, if we wish to be logical and speak about qualifications we should determine who Alan Phillips is.  Phillips is not a doctor, he is not a research scientist, he does not hold a PhD, nor has he written any peer-reviewed papers.  He is not an immunologist nor has he attended medical school.  He isn't a nurse, he doesn't hold an advanced degree in any medical or scientific field, and as far as I can tell he has never so much as set foot in a research lab where vaccines are being studied.

In reality, Phillips is a lawyer rather than a scientist or doctor.  That was obvious as soon as I read the first paragraph of his editorial, because even the most anti-vaccination doctors out there seem to have a better grasp on the facts, but beyond being a lawyer, Mr. Phillips is actually an anti-vaccine lawyer or a vaccine exemption lawyer whichever you prefer.  This means he gets paid to sue organizations, states, the federal government or whoever else in an attempt to claim vaccine exemptions for his clients for a number of different reasons with the most common falling under the guise of a religious objection.  He even posts a FAQ on his website (http://www.vaccinerights.com/q&a.html) which counsels people on how to go about requesting a religious exemption even if they have no such religion in the first place.  Does this wreak of a conflict of interest to anyone?  I find it ironic that a lawyer writing about vaccines and making claims about vaccines being harmful has such an obvious ethical conflict here, but that isn't likely to sway any of the anti-vaxers even when they (hypocritically) try to suggest the vaccine manufacturers are just in it for the money.

Philips is also an advisory board Member of the American Chiropractic Autism Board (yes really... I didn't even have to make that up) and a board member of the World Association for Vaccine Education.  If neither of these organizations means anything to you don't fret because you aren't alone.  The anti-vaxers like to create groups and give them clever names even though the same handful of people are involved in all of them... it is just another way they try to give credibility to their cause because they can add things to their resumes and websites to make themselves sound important.

How do I know these groups are entirely worthless?  Well in the case of the "World Association for Vaccine Education" (or WAVE as they like to be called), they have a introductory statement on their website that reads "... study vaccine data from a non-medical point of view".  Are you serious?  What other way is there to study vaccines that from a medical and/or scientific viewpoint?  Frankly you cannot study vaccines any other way.  The quackery doesn't stop there however - WAVE even invented their own journal (Medical Veritas - obviously not an accepted or reputable journal within the medical or scientific community) so they could pack it with their own data and claim it was "published in a journal".  The mere fact their website is http://www.novaccine.com/ is enough to tell us they aren't interested in the scientific process but rather have formed opinions and seek to throw data at those opinions in the hopes something will stick.  If you want to talk about bias - this is a prime example at work.

Besides Philips, who else is on the board of WAVE?  Well it is a laundry list of anti-vaxers, but there are the usual suspects including Sherri Tenpenny, Mary Tocco, a guy who created the "Hyperbaric Medical Association" and who operates a "Hyperbaric Medical Center" and a "Hyperbaric Oxygen Clinic" (I could write a whole separate post about this guy and his unscientific alternative medicine quackery) and several chiropractors, one of which feels it important to specifically list in his bio that he was Michigan All-State Cross Country in 1983.  Yes really - these people really have no shame.

So what about the comically named "American Chiropractic Autism Board" or ACAB?  Well if you visit their website you will find their "board of advisers" includes many of the same people as are found on WAVE such as Philips, Boyd Haley and Mary Tocco.  You will also find Tocco's daughter and Tocco's husband (or former husband... I seem to remember something about them being divorced) both of which are Chiropractors, and you will find a few other Chiropractors, NDs, a woman who is a "Certified Nutrition Counselor" and a couple of women who have no official credentials at all other than the fact they are mothers of autistic kids (or in the case of one a mother of a kid who was autistic and has since recovered).  I suppose one of them does claim to be a "writer, teacher and cartoonist" so that is probably worth something right?

I'm not sure being affiliated with either of these organizations makes Phillips qualified to speak on the subject of vaccines, but he sure seems to think so.  In fact he claims on his website that he is "is one of the nation's leading vaccine rights attorneys" (although I'm not exactly sure how he is able to verify such a claim).

Rest assured however if you can't afford Mr. Philips services he can offer you his book for the low-low price of $24.95.  Keep in mind that is a great value, because the book is "over 100 pages" and Philips claims it holds a retail price of $39.95.  Of course it is only an e-book because for $25 you can't expect real paper, and you will need to download it yourself or pay an extra $5 to have them mail you a CD.  Honestly - are there ANY of these anti-vaxer types who DON'T have a book, CD, DVD, or line of supplements to sell?

The most comical aspect of Philips' bio however is the following quote: "Alan is an accomplished professional singer-songwriter on piano and 12-string acoustic guitar, with achievements that include standing ovations at seven international conferences and sales of original music to citizens from countries on six continents."

Awesome - so apparently when you get a standing ovation for your music, or when you have sold some CDs in a few different countries... that means you are somehow qualified and at all relevant to speak about vaccines.  Gothca.

As sad as it is, these are the types of people who are professed as experts on vaccine related subjects within the anti-vaxer camps.  Actual credentials matter little when the snakeoil salesman is telling you exactly what you want to hear, but don't expect an anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist to admit it.  In truth I really can't even blame Phillips because he is probably a very intelligent guy.  He found a niche market (parents who are petrified that their kids will be harmed by vaccinations) and he ran with it.  For all I know Phillips might have kids who are all up to speed on their vaccinations, but he understands he has a role to play, and it becomes rather easy to prey upon ignorant anti-vaccination types while laughing all the way to the bank.

So at the end of the day what do you really believe?  Do you take the opinion of a lawyer who has an obvious ethical bias tied to his personal income, or do you trust proven time-tested scientific methods which produce research and results which are replicated and peer-reviewed?  For someone with a level head and at least average intellect the answer is clear, but for someone like Lowell Hubbs apparently it isn't quite so easy... which is exactly what keeps so many anti-vaccine snakeoil salesman in business.

Quack of the Day: "Dr" Andrew Moulden

Andrew Moulden is a pretty common name tossed around within vaccine conspiracy circles, and Mr. Hubbs is no exception. Again and again, Mr. Hubbs cites the work (I dare not use the term research to describe it) of Mr. Moulden and even though Moulden has yet to actually prove any of his claims, that really doesn't matter in the mind of a medical conspiracy theorist.

So who is this Moulden guy and why is he so important? Why is he so frequently cited by Mr. Hubbs and other vaccine conspiracy theorists alongside Sherri Tenpenny, Andrew Wakefield, Russell Blaylock, or the ever-present references to the infamous whale.to website?

Well the short version is that Moulden claims he knows the root cause of autism, which as a coincidence just so happens to be related to vaccines. He also used his websites (the now defunct www.brainguardmd.com, www.AMassNetwork.com, www.JustGetUsIn.com, and www.brain-guard.com among numerous others) to sell nutritional supplements, pamplets, DVDs, and tickets to his various seminars.

Where have we heard this story before?

Of course reality soon caught up with Moulden and people started looking beyond the clever marketing, the scare tactics, and the silly YouTube videos. This resulted in Moulden pulling his website which was likely a result of investigations into his claims which found them totally without merit, and due in part because he was using his website to sell diagnoses of brain disorders remotely. The basic premise was Moulden would ask people to send in videos (or sometimes just photographs) of their children looking at the camera, and based upon eye movements he would diagnose what is wrong with them... for a hefty fee of course. He called this idiocy his "BrainGuard" process, and in order to even submit a video or photographs he required people to hold a "AMassNetwork IMAN-12" membership - which required a paid fee as well.

Not only did Moulden profess he could diagnose autism or brain disorders via photographs, he even went so far as to claim he could diagnose "some learning and language disabilities" from seeing photographs alone! Even to a layperson this is simply unbelievable as a photograph doesn't tell you anything about the cognitive abilities of a person, but of course to a vaccine conspiracy theorist such as Mr. Hubbs it all makes perfect sense.

Granted anyone who has ever had a photograph taken where they were purposefully crossing their eyes or making a funny face I guess this would be enough to convince Moulden that they have a brain disorder - but back here on the real world where actual diagnoses takes more than a photograph this type of snakeoil simply will not do. Now I fully realize it is hard to believe that anyone (even a self-proclaimed expert such as Moulden) would actually make such wild claims, but thankfully we have his own words to quote to remove any doubt:

"...we are able to diagnose vaccine injury (including autism and aspergers and Gulf War Syndrome and Gardasil adversity and some learning and language disabilities..from photos alone - conformed by video.. and we are right, on the photos alone, 80% of teh [sic] time..add the video - we hit >95% to 100% accuracy)." ~Andrew Moulden

And taken directly from his website (before it was removed) is the entire sales pitch:

"BrainGuard provides digital video and photograph based "video microscopy" to monitor and assess for clinically silent brain damage that causes, or has caused, neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders including autism, autism-spectrum, pervasive developmental disorders, Asperger's syndrome, sudden infant death, infantile paralysis, Post vaccine syndromes (Gulf War syndrome, Guillain Barre syndrome, cognitive impairment...), seizure disorders, ischemic strokes, specific learning disabilities, and attention deficit disorders.

AMassNetwork IMAN-12 Membership available at (www.AMassNetwork.com). You must have an AMassNetwork membership subscription in order Access/receive BrainGuard services and solutions.

Brain damage, especially vaccine and infectious disease induced brain damage, is clinically silent. Our proprietary techniques and technologies provide the means and methods to assess and monitor the integrity of the central nervous system from birth to adulthood with a non-invasive, cost-efficient, home based, video/photo solution for monitoring the integrity of the human brain across neurodevelopment.

There are three steps:

Capture a 30 second video clip of the BrainGuard client - full face in view, eyes open, awake, alert, and responding/attending to the videographer.

Login or Register with BrainGuardMD.com

Follow instructions on how to upload your video/pictures to our secure servers.

What Comes Next:

We will process your submissions and inform, via email to your "IMAM-12" account the results of your BrainGuard scan(s). If we detect the MASS response (a medical emergency) one of our staff will contact you directly with what to do next.

If you are looking for proof causation of vaccine induced brain damage (including autism, Gulf War syndrome, Wrongful death, brain impairment...) - BrainGuard can provide these services and all inquiries."

Now obviously you couldn't make this up even if you were skilled at sarcasm, but this is word for word what Moulden had on his website. So basically Moulden claims he can diagnose a veritable plethora of brain disorders via photographs and/or video without so much as a basic collection of vitals, any medical history whatsoever, or even the most basic of basic interviews or clinical exams... and this is the type of guy the anti-vaccine crowd wants to use as a trusted expert?

Of course charging hundreds or even thousands of dollars to diagnose a medical condition via the Internet is only one part of the scam. Once the "patient" was diagnosed by Moulden as suffering from Moulden Anoxia Spectrum Syndromes or "M.A.S.S" (obviously a term invented by Moulden to serve as a catch-all for anything and everything that he found suspect), he would then sell them his miracle "Brainguard" formula for the low-low price of $47.00 for a one month supply - plus shipping and handling of course.

There is only one major problem here. Not a single one of Moulden's theories or techniques was ever proven. Not only that, but his miracle "Brainguard" supplements were just that... nutritional supplements. They were not pharmeceuticals or legitimate medicine and they even had to carry a disclaimer on them that they weren't intended to treat or cure or prevent any disease etc, thus Moulden himself even understood they were nothing but snakeoil because he never bothered to even attempt to publish a single peer-reviewed paper nor did he ever perform a single clinical trial in any attempt to back up his claims or provide support to this theories.

Now obviously if you are a fellow vaccine conspiracy theorist like Mr. Hubbs you will continue to defend Moulden's work and claim that the FDA or CDC or AMA or whatever other three lettered medical body is corrupt and has done what it can to silence Moulden. The only problem with that is that Moulden himself is Canadian, and as such the US government and American medical governing bodies don't have any control over Moulden's claims unless he tries to practice medicine in the US.

This just goes to show that a quack in America is a quack in any other part of the world as well, even when they are far outside the jurisdiction of the American government.  However even with all of this said, even with the above mentioned facts that cannot be disputed, the biggest problem with Andrew Moulden is probably the fact that the man doesn't hold a license to practice medicine, and thus any attempt by him to diagnose patients (either in person or via the Internet) would be illegal.

I know it can be confusing as Mr. Hubbs and other vaccination conspiracy theorists continually refer to Moulden as "Dr. Moulden", but the truth is Moulden doesn't hold an actual license to practice medicine in either Canada or the US (or anywhere else for that matter).  Moulden does hold a doctorate that much is true, but his PhD is actually in psychology.  He earned that degree in 1999 and then claims to have earned his "doctor of medicine" degree a year later from an entirely different school atlhough that seems highly suspect and is unverified.

The fact is, Moulden never finished his residency program (which was in psychiatry not any field related to vaccines by the way), and he has NEVER been licensed to practice medicine - anywhere.  Don't take my word for it though, just read it directly from The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the one and only official medical licensing body of Ontario) which clearly shows he attempted to get through a residency program, but after eight years of trying he was only able to reach the third year (the residency requires five years to complete), so he must have finally given up and decided there was more money to be made by selling DVDs and speaking at seminars than there was by actually practicing legitimate medicine.

So having a medical degree or being able to call yourself a doctor just isn't enough.  Earning a PhD does grant you the right to call yourself a doctor, but someone who fails to complete an actual medical residency program is no more able to treat patients or prescribe treatments as someone who earned their PhD in Economics or History.  Although in reality you might have better luck getting medical advice from a doctor of history rather than someone like Moulden who pretends to be a legitimate doctor.

When you boil it all down and examine the facts, Moulden is just like all of the other "experts" that are all too often cited by antivaxxers like Mr. Hubbs.  He is a great pitchman and tells a good story, and he does have a certain way of convincing people to buy his products (the Billy Mays of the vaccine world if you will) but at the end of the day when you peel back the curtain there not only is no science to support it, but you find the velvet curtain is actually just cheap polyester... an imitation meant to look like the real thing from afar.

Will any of this stop ignorant vaccine conspiracy theorists like Mr. Hubbs from continuing to cite "Dr. Moulden" on their blogs and websites?  Probably not, because if I have learned anything about these types of people it is that even when they are proven wrong and even after you have discredited every single one of their claims or experts, they still refuse to acknowledge the world around them.  We have seen it with "Dr" Tenpenny, we have seen it with "Dr" Wakefield, we have seen it with "Dr" Moulden, and I'm sure we will see it many times in the future as well.

Say what you will about people like Mr. Hubbs, but it is more than obvious that he is a very slow learner.

Quack of the Day: "Dr" Bruce Hagen

If there is one trait most chiropractors share, it is a desire to convince people that traditional allopathic medicine is bad whereas chiropractic "spinal adjustments" and physical adjustments to the spine, neck, and joints can solve almost all health issues.

Some chiropractors even go so far as to suggest spinal manipulation and adjustments can treat common diseases or strengthen the immunity system to prevent a person from ever getting sick which is a subject I have discussed in the past. Other chiropractors will suggest they can treat conditions such as ADHD, ADD, Autism, IBS, allergies, glaucoma, Parkinson's disease, kidney stones, gall stones and even heart attacks!

Truth be told, I have no issue with chiropractors who are honest with their patients and who set the proper expectations for treatment. Many chiropractic treatments are effective for lower back pain and some joint pain (even if they are no better than standard physical therapy or massage), but above all the one thing chiropractic care offers a patient is the power of healing touch. Many studies have found that people respond to the touch of others, and although this is in effect nothing more than a mental placebo, if it helps to reduce stress and pain and allows the person to feel more comfortable I fail to see the harm.

However what I do take issue with is when chiropractors use this knowledge for personal gain and profit.  Rather than actually cure an issue or resolve a complaint, many chiropractors require their patients to return for follow-up adjustments week after week and in some cases up to three or more visits each and every week with no end in sight.  When asked to provide a treatment plan, many chiropractors simply say each case is unique and the patient needs to continue to return for treatments until they feel they are fully healed.  That may take months, and in some cases years.  For a person suffering from chronic pain as is often the case with someone who has fibromyalgia, these treatments can continue for years and even decades.

Contrast this with a traditional medical doctor (MD) who prescribes an antibiotic for an infection.  The doctor doesn't require the patient to come back three times a week to receive treatment, and doesn't tell the patient they need to come back for follow-up visits each week until the infection is 100% cleared up.  What they will do is prescribe the antibiotic and inform the patient to take the complete prescription.  If the infection clears up there is nothing more to do, however if the infection returns or gets worse then and only then should the patient return to the doctor for a follow-up.

Now I ask - which of these two scenarios seems like it is merely connected to profit, and which is in the best interests of the patient?  When a 15 minute adjustment with a chiropractor can cost $65 to $80, and the treatments go on indefinitely (or until the patient realizes it is costing them more for chiropractic treatments in a month than it is for rent or food), it surely doesn't seem like it is in the best interests of the patient.

With all of this being said, I do feel there is a balance between traditional allopathic medicine and chiropractic care.  Some MDs will even suggest their patients visit a chiropractor for specific treatments, and in some cases the two work in harmony with one another.  However the problem begins with chiropractors attempt to convince people that traditional medical doctors aren't needed and that chiropractic care is superior or a more modern way of treating medical conditions.

In the Sioux Falls area, one of the most well known chiropractors is Dr. Bruce Christopher Hagen.  He has been a practicing chiropractor for decades upon decades and has two sons (Bruce Jon Hagen and Mark Palmer Hagen) who are both chiropractors as well.  Bruce Jon Hagen has stated he is a third generation chiropractor which leads me to believe Bruce Christopher Hagen was probably the son of a chiropractor, and there is also another Hagen (Christopher Hagen) who works with or has worked with Bruce Jon Hagen who is also a chiropractor, so needless to say cracking bones runs in the family - and it has been VERY profitable for the Hagen family.

Bruce C. Hagen even thinks so highly of the idea of chiropractic care that he named his own son after Daniel David Palmer (or DD Palmer) who is the founder of chiropractic treatment back in the 1890s.  That is where the "Palmer" within Mark Palmer Hagen originated from, so clearly Bruce Hagen is very fond of chiropractic treatment and the Palmer College of Chiropractic (where he went to school to become a chiropractor).

So it should come as no surprise to learn that Bruce Hagen has authored a book entitled "How to live to be 100 in Spite of your Doctor".  Now for sake of argument I'm going to assume Hagen is referring to real medical doctors and not all doctors, because that would essentially be suggesting to the readers of the book that they should avoid all doctors including doctors of chiropractic (DC).

Within this book (which Hagen has been promoting everywhere and to anyone who will listen) he offers up such unsubstantiated statements such as "the leading cause of death in America is neither heart disease nor cancer... it's doctor caused illness" (where have we heard that idiocy before), " if it's advertised on TV, it may be bad for you", and my personal favorite "there is more sickness today than ever before".

Now as to the claim about it being advertised on TV it might be bad for you, Hagen might actually have a point.  Kevin Trudeau advertises on TV all the time, and history has shown us he isn't exactly good for us.  I also see a lot of ads for those amazing knives you can buy for $19.99... and I suppose to some degree those could be bad for you if you cut your finger or accidentally stab yourself while trying to demonstrate how to slice through a can of SPAM like they do on television.  However it seems pretty clear that what Hagen is actually referring to is the overabundance of pharmaceuticals advertised on television.  

The thing is, anyone of moderate intelligence knows drugs aren't about to cure everything, and the list of potential side effects are often long.  We already know drugs aren't always the answer and we already know that in some cases there will be side effects that are as bad or even worse than the condition being treated.  That is an accepted risk we take when we decide to take prescription drugs, and hopefully as modern science continues to improve the benefits will continue to increase while the risks and side effects will continue to decrease.

As far as Hagen's statement about more sickness than ever before, it really depends upon how to look at it.  People are living longer these days due in no small part to modern medicine.  We also have a world population of over six billion people which is growing exponentially, so it stands to reason there will be more sickness than ever before because that is merely the law of averages.  There is also more consumption than ever before, more humans than ever before, more 100 year olds than ever before, more ingrown toenails than ever before, and more reruns of Saved By The Bell than ever before... but none of that really matters and aside from fooling those non-critical thinkers that might buy Hagen's book clever statements like this don't mean a thing.

Perhaps more importantly than clever phrases and senseless statements, Hagen would like to offer up some scientific evidence to support his many claims.  Perhaps he would like to parlay his decades of chiropractic experience into a published paper or research study, or perhaps he would like to contribute to a scholarly journal.  Rest assured none of these things will happen however, because in order to print an article in a journal it would need to be peer-reviewed which is scrutiny Hagen would never want to accept.  Therefore it is much easier to write a book, pay a publisher to print it, and sell it to patients and ignorant fools via the Internet for $15 per copy.

Hagen has even went so far as to develop a snappy website to hawk his book, and true to form with so many other anti-mainstream medicine types he offers a few other products such as nutritional charts for sale as well. With all of this being said, I have taken a few observations from looking at his website which make me wonder why all of these chiropractors and anti-mainstream medicine gurus all share the same desire to have websites that look like they were created by a 14 year old using circa-1992 geocities website creation tools.

First of all this could quite possibly be one of the ugliest websites I have ever seen.  The text is choppy, the grammar and text appears to have been written by someone who likely had trouble graduating high school, and the layout could have been improved had they created the site within Microsoft Word.  Add to that the fact that two of his primary links don't even function properly (he linked to www.howtolivetobe100inspiteofherdoctor.com instead of the proper URL of www.howtolivetobe100inspiteofyourdoctor.com/), and it really starts making you wonder why anyone would claim to have designed this page.  Of course after looking at the webpage for the actual site designer, it seems more than obvious that this is a low budget operation.

Granted his choice of web designer doesn't have any bearing upon the book itself, but I do find it comical that any self-respected doctor would have such a website to begin with.  Looking at Hagen's "favorite links" section is a veritable "who's who" list of various profit-seeking alternative medicine types which offer various newsletters for sale, supplements, bumper stickers, and postcards.  Ask yourself the last time you saw a real medical doctor with such a website, and then ask yourself the last time your doctor tried to sell you a copy of his or her own book or to get you to spend $48 a year for their monthly newsletter.

This seems to be the common problem with so many alternative medicine proponents.  On one hand they want everyone to believe how corrupt modern medicine is and that they have all of these miracle cures and treatments that will prolong your life or ease your pain, but in order to obtain this wonderful miracle knowledge, they always expect people to pay money to download a newsletter or buy a book.  Whereas traditional medical techniques and diagnoses can be reality found online in hundreds of locations, most alternative medical knowledge is more often than not only found in a paid format.

So is it really about sharing knowledge, or is it just about profiting from the fear perpetuated by proclaiming modern medicine is a sham and that all drug companies and doctors and government agencies are in on the game?  I think we all know the answer.

At the end of the day, Hagen and his fellow alternative medicine proponents are nothing more than hypocrites.  They complain about drug company profits and about the cost of healthcare while raking in millions a year from their alternatives, and yet throughout all of this alternative medicine has not brought us one single cure or solution to any major medical disorder - EVER.  They complain about the idea of taking a pill to treat a condition while suggesting people take daily supplements for the rest of their lives, and they complain the truth is being hidden from the public while they all seem to have the real answers... for a price.

In fact, even though Hagen professes himself to be in such good health by bragging about how he still works 10 to 16 hours a day, how he plays tennis and golf several times a week, and how he has a full head of hair at age 77, Hagen actually has relied upon the services of traditional medical doctors and has even taken prescription drugs.  He will be quick to tell people that for 50 years of his life he didn't have to take any prescriptions, but the same would be true for most 77 year olds.  If you actually add up the number of time the typical 77 year old person has ever taken medications, it likely would be a mere fraction of their life, not to mention the fact that up until 30 or so years ago prescriptions were very limited outside of standard antibiotics and some pain medications - so even if someone wanted to take a drug for a specific symptom it may not have been available.

The bottom line is although Hagen may offer some good generalized advice within his book, it does not in any way suggest simply by leading a certain lifestyle or by taking some vitamins that a person will live to be 100.  There are so many factors that go into health from genetic traits to environmental exposure to mere chance that nobody can guarantee health throughout their lives.  Mr. Hagen may very well live to be 100 and if so more power to him, but the reality is he may also die around his 80th birthday and if that is the case his life expectancy would be nothing more than average.

I'm not suggesting that Hagen is a bad guy, in fact I'm sure his heart is in the right place, but I do hope that people are intelligent enough to consider all factors that go into health and life expectancy.  If they find that chiropractic care or some supplements is all that is necessary to keep them feeling well then so be it, but if they find (like Hagen, and like our very own Mr. Hubbs) that there are times in which they need to seek the assistance of a traditional medical doctor, I hope that books like this do not convince them otherwise, as that would be a disservice to their health, their lives, and those who may care about them.

You see - it is quite possible to offer medical advice without having to charge for it, although if you want to send me $19.95 as a thank-you gift I surely won't protest.