New Zealand's Own "Journal" of Natural Nuttiness

By Michael Edmonds 09/02/2013 40


While browsing at the bookshop today I came across the self styled New Zealand “Journal” of Natural Medicine, one of the most concentrated examples of quackery promotion that I have ever seen.

Articles include:

Eczema and the Homeopathic “Direction of Cure”

The End of Antibiotics and the rise of Iodine as an effective Alternative

DNA can be Reprogrammed by Words and Frequencies

Electrohypersensitivity – a New Environmental Impairment

A Simple Way to Neutralise Fluorides

Colloidal Silver: Cure for MRSA

And a special section on Vaccines!

 

I haven’t been able to do more than skim a few of the articles but I’m seeing the usual poor thinking skills common amongst supporters of alternative therapies – use of dodgy reference sources, misquoting genuine science studies, misusing scientific terminology, anecdotes, confusion between correlation and causation, and of course, attacks on mainstream science.

The letters page includes a contribution from a reader who revealed that, now that his mercury fillings have been removed he is thinking more clearly, is buzzing with energy and his clairvoyance has returned.

Worse than the articles are the advertisements for homeopaths, electro pollution testing, electromagnetic shielding products and colour therapy, to name but a few.

The scary thing is that this is issue 8 so there are 7 prior issues of concentrated quackery promotion.

 

 

 


40 Responses to “New Zealand's Own "Journal" of Natural Nuttiness”

  • I’m so pleased to see this “journal” addressed here. I saw an article on a terminal cancer case cured with wheatgrass smoothies in an earlier edition.

    Worryingly, I have seen people cite articles from this “journal” as if they were a publisher of credible, peer reviewed research. The name suggests undeserved reputability. It’s quite concerning that people may not be able to distinguish between a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and quackery such as this, published in what I consider to be a deceptive manner.

    I hope you manage to raise some awareness of this scary publication.

  • Thanks Andrea

    Given the amount of dubious content in this “journal” I am hoping to write a series of blogs addressing various topics.
    If anyone knows where I can ack down previous editions can you let me know. I’m really hoping libraries do not carry it

  • I seem to remember that Andy Lewis (of Quackometer fame) wrote about a similar publication over in the UK. The comments thread was quite interesting, including as it did a discussion on whether bookstores should boycott such material.

    One of the things that’s always puzzled me about the world of woo is that no-one seems to realise that they can’t all be right. I mean, if homeopathy cures everything, why are there also colloidal silver, tinfoil hats, & so on?

  • I saw a reference to this magazine a little while back and looked into it. One of the editors is Alison Roe – a famous athlete in her past. I guess you could say she was one of several athletes I looked up to as a kid (along with too many others to name). I have to admit I felt disgusted seeing her name there as an editor of that rubbish. It’s hard to have any respect for her now.

    The athletics world has (more than) it’s share of woo. Placebos for confidence, perhaps. Likely the coaches tolerate it for that reason. It‘s a real shame when leading sportspeople put there name to nonsense (worse if others be harmed).

  • I must admit, one of the articles made me laugh especially when it wrote ‘did you know the DNA can be damaged…and repaired?’.

    I mean, gosh. Who knew, right?!

    The article in question went on to speak about how ingesting he,p was the best way to do this, but yes. Having seen the issue in question up close and personal, I found my reactions varied from hysterical laughter to total bemusement to forehead-vein-thumping fury.

  • Claire,

    I saw the title (“DNA can be Reprogrammed by Words and Frequencies”) in Michael’s article and thought that’d be one I could tackle myself, if I was so inclined.

    While I can’t find a copy on the magazine website, I can find copies of an article with exactly the same title all over the internet. I imagine it’s the same article. To say that article is bizarre would be exceptionally kind.

  • It is easy to poo poo something that is against what we are told to believe by mass media, and label it quackery, but I’m impressed that you all were interested and read this magazine ( or parts of). I enjoy this magazine myself and find many articles very interesting. I’m not ‘vulnerable’ but just open minded as sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know! Often people don’t seek out information between the lines of what society deems acceptable and this magazine is offering this, and as an intelligent human i appreciate the magazines intention. Perhaps it is fear that prevents some from being open minded?

  • I have read two earlier Uncensored magazines and though I did not accept all the info it did get me started on a quest to find out more on natural cures and I must say there is a wealth of info on the internet and youtube which is freely available if you want to do your own research.
    There is such a horrible record of cancer cures from the established medical profession that I started with that. What I discovered through my research was mind blowing to say the least. I no longer fear cancer as the cures are so simple that it makes me laugh. But what would I know? Only what I have researched for myself.
    I am surprised the magazine has lasted so long as the info is freely available without subscribtion.
    I guess Alison Roe has done her own research also.

    • Bill Porter,

      “I no longer fear cancer as the cures are so simple that it makes me laugh”

      And what cures are those?

  • Do you really want to know? If so check out B17apricot kernel the research completed by G Edward Griffen for starters.
    Dr Simoncini and his use of bicarbonate of soda on cancer tumours, maybe a month in hospital and tumours gone send them home.
    Do some personal research as there is a lot more out there that work you just will not hear about it from the established med fraternity. Check out Chris beat cancer, this guy has just celebrated 10 years from when he had surgery to cut out cancer but refused chemo instead he followed the raw vege and fruit diet and has not had a recurrence all that time and now he informs people about the alternatives available and interviews others and how they cured themselves.
    I am also aware of the hemp oil but have not researched as why would you want to when there are legitimate and simpler cures out there.
    I have used this info to make some dietary changes in my own life otherwise why bother with the research if you do not put it to work.
    Quite simply you are what you eat and in that area I am no saint I like meat I just choose to eat a lot less of it. Checkout the human body alkaline/acid state and how important it is to maintain good health. A lot the information I am giving is backed by solid research by reputable doctors and professionals but ignored completely by the establishment who seek to ……… No see if you can find out why this info is being made into quackery instead of being made public.
    See if you come to the same conclusion as I did because you may be able to help someone who has cancer if you are armed with the right ammunition, I am and so can anyone be just do the research. Forearmed is forewarned. Thanks for the opportunity to post.

  • “Dr Simoncini and his use of bicarbonate of soda on cancer tumours, maybe a month in hospital and tumours gone send them home.” – if this is the case then why is this ‘treatment’ not widely used on a global basis? Also, has Simoncini actually published his results? If he actually has the data to support claims like this, then what possible grounds could he have for not publishing?

    Re the ‘Chris who beat cancer’ point – have you considered that the original surgery may actually have removed all cancerous tissue?

  • Bill Porter,

    An interesting mix of approaches to cancer treatment you mention here.
    I certainly wouldn’t argue with the idea of more vegetables and fruit, I think a lot of people could benefit from eating more, and raw certainly retains more vitamins than cooking.
    Th use of bicarbonate soda is often advocated in association with the belief that cancer comes from “excess acid” in the body. There is no evidence to support this and in terms of body biochemistry it really does make much sense.
    Apricot kernels contain laetrile, which is capable of releasing cyanide within the body, so consuming too much can be dangerous. And I’m not aware of any studies that show it is effective or safe.
    Agree with you about the healthy food approach – other approaches shown to reduce various types of cancer include less stress, regular health checks, and not smoking.

  • Just to quickly note the first two:

    The apricot kernel scam plays on that apricot kernels contain amygdalin, which apparently has been shown to be ineffective against cancer, a (small) amount of cyanide, part of the reason why bitter apricot kernels taste bitter. (Laetrile is similar to amygdalin and also incorrectly touted as a cancer cure.)

    ‘Dr’ Simoncini is a convicted fraudster (also convicted for manslaughter via his ‘treatment’) and is no longer a doctor as his medical license was revoked. There are many articles explaining his scam. I touched on it in a post on my blog. ‘Orac’ has a recent take on it, too. (I’ll put the link for his take in the next comment to avoid this hitting the spam filter.)

    I‘d give more references to back what I’ve written, but these cause comments to get held up as spam.

  • (My first comment crossed over the Alison’s and Michael’s – they write faster than me…)

    There should be an ‘and’ before ‘a (small) amount of cyanide’ – sorry.

  • Hey guys, I mentioned that you need to do your own research but from the alternative perspective, none of you appear to have found out why the med fraternity bunk the alternative approach even if you do not agree with it at least find out why the alternatives group have to go underground.
    Doctors only know what they are taught in med school and that is the only approach they are allowed to take if they want to continue to practise. Find out why?
    Gershon protocol, Dr Revici more evidence with case testimonies both dealing with cases that the med frat had given up on. More difficult to cure once patients had gone through the chemo and radiation with of course lower success rates. Immune system is destroyed by chemo and radiation….. Check them all out from their perspective first not the med one. Make a fully informed decision.

  • Bill, I repeat my question from a few comments back:

    “Dr Simoncini and his use of bicarbonate of soda on cancer tumours, maybe a month in hospital and tumours gone send them home.” – if this is the case then why is this ‘treatment’ not widely used on a global basis? Also, has Simoncini actually published his results? If he actually has the data to support claims like this, then what possible grounds could he have for not publishing? As the history of science & medicine shows, scientists & doctors really do take new findings on board if there is robust evidence in support. If Simoncini really does have the results you claim, then there is no good excuse for not publishing them, given the huge positive impact this would have on so many lives.

    Incidentally, a modified form of the ‘Gershon protocol’ turned out to be worse than useless in a clinical trial: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2860407/

  • “Hey guys, I mentioned that you need to do your own research”

    Hey Bill, didn’t you spot that we already have? 😉

    “ none of you appear to have found out why the med fraternity bunk the alternative approach”

    Erm, no, that’s not why there’ll considered bunk. It’s because when tested they don’t work (or worse).

    That’s also the bailiwick of science, not medical training.

    Simoncini, for example, actually harmed his patients – if you read the link I provided you’d see I touched on that in my article.

  • Hey to be fair, you guys are only checking from one side of the coin.
    Switch off the med red warning light and research from the originators side first, and I mean research everything you can find then you can make a fully informed comment.
    Take the time to listen to the survivors and there are many that I have seen, using different protocols.
    I found out why the treatments are not widely used but I want to see if you can find out because to do so means you will have to research more than just one clip or page. All I have read above is parroting the establishment. You need to go deeper than that to find the truth of the matter whether you agree with it or not.
    Just sayin.

    • Bill Porter,
      Don’t you think it is a bit presumptuous of you to assume you know how much research any of us have done? Quite a few of those posting here have read “more than just one clip and page.”
      On the other hand You have presented no evidence that you have read widely. When reading claims about various treatments and protocols it is important to weigh each piece of evidence carefully and no just rely on cherry picked anecdotes. You talk about listening to the survivors but to be fair one must also consider those who did not survive while using a particular protocol.

  • You win Mike.
    I do not think that any evidence I could produce would make any difference I only hope that you are never put in the position to take your own medicine because it is obvious to me that you do not know what success rate is for chemo and radiation patients beyond five years which the med establishment uses as their standard of success because if you did you might reconsider. Dr Gershwin took over the patients that had already been poisoned and burned and still ended up with a 14% success rate but your only informed of the numbers that died the ones that were cast off as impossible cases. I have just completed the book The Doctor Who Cured Cancer, Dr Revici who was hounded out of business. He also took on board the ones left to go home and die and MD’s who worked with him from the mainstream could not praise him high enough due to his success rate and even they felt the heat because of their support.
    You are obviously confident in your sources of research as I in mine the difference is I am confident in the simple dietary cure but are you as confident in the chemo and radiation?

    • Bill,

      “it is obvious to me that you do not know what success rate is for chemo and radiation patients beyond five years”

      Some types of cancer respond well to to chemo/radiation/surgical therapies, some do not. Work is ongoing to find better treatments.

      However, they still give the patient a better chance at survival than relying on unproven and implausible natural treatments.

  • Dr Gershwin took over the patients that had already been poisoned and burned and still ended up with a 14% success rate
    Can you provide a citation in support of that statement (ie an actual publication with the data)? In addition, chemotherapy & radiotherapy do result in cures. How can you be sure that the previous conventional treatment didn’t produce the results that Gershon claimed as his own?

    Dr Revici – this Dr Revici (http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/revicis-guided-chemotherapy)? Two separate studies of patients referred to him found no evidence that his treatments actually worked. His licence to practice was revoked in 1993, when he was 96, so he’d had a pretty fair run, using what is a chemical therapy ie chemotherapy.

    Which begs the question why you would feel that his form of chemo is OK when the treatments used by mainstream medicine aren’t. Especially since he never actually published the results of any clinical trial. It’s worth asking (again) why someone would not publish the results of a ‘treatment’ that they had been delivering for around 50 years & for which they claimed to have outstanding results, given the impact this would have on people’s health & the potential for official praise & recognition.

  • G Edward Griffen explains why you will not find clinical studies on natural remedies, to put it simply there is no money to be made from it.
    You cannot patent a natural substance only a synthesised product.
    Which pharmatheutical company will spend millions of dollars on the natural product for trials when in the end your competitors will benefit from it without spending a penny because there is no patent applicable?
    Cancer is a multibillion dollar industry do you think that those holding the purse strings are looking for a cure?
    They prefer to offer on going treatment …….they have a nonprofit society informing the public to get tested for cancer annually, sooner or later your scan will give you cancer so they will always have a supply of patients. Treatment may be free but the cost to supply the treatment is being paid by you and me…..taxpayer.
    Hard to believe I know but when you look closely at it somebody is pulling the wool over our eyes and I do not know about you guys but I have woken up from my slumber, it is time for the truth to be told. That’s me signing off now. Well known quote …..Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food. I like it it is so simple.

    • Bill Porter

      “They prefer to offer on going treatment …….they have a nonprofit society informing the public to get tested for cancer annually, sooner or later your scan will give you cancer so they will always have a supply of patients.”

      I really get sick of seeing people malign the medical/scientific community the way you have done, just to try and promote your ideas.
      The vast majority of people in the health and medical research sector are motivated by concern for their fellow human beings and seek to alleviate suffering. To suggest that they would prefer on going treatments and treatments which could cause cancer over developing a cure, is misguided and quite offensive.
      It is unfortunately a common tactic of those promoting pseudoscience- if they can’t present reasonable evidence to support their “alternative” treatment they instead try to attack legitimate science.

      “.Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food. I like it it is so simple.”

      Just because you like it and it is simple does not make it true. Healthy people develop diseases such as cancer too. While healthy eating can certainly reduce the possibility of developing some diseases, to assume that it is all that is needed to avoid disease is a healthy disease is very naive and not supported by the evidence

  • Bill –

    “you will not find clinical studies on natural remedies”

    There are trials of ‘natural’ remedies. Not necessarily always particularly good trials, but there are most certainly trials.

    “You cannot patent a natural substance only a synthesised product.
    Which pharmatheutical company will spend millions of dollars on the natural product for trials when in the end your competitors will benefit from it without spending a penny because there is no patent applicable?”

    The companies can identify the active ingredients, then synthetise them.

    Why are you making excuse after excuse? The ‘there is no money in it’ line is silly. Obviously there would be money it in – if they had a reasonable chance of working.

    The major drug companies don’t particularly care where the ingredients originally came from. The business issues, including patents, have various solutions.

    What they do care about is that the ingredients have a reasonable enough chance of working to justify them investing their money and time in. That is why there is little investment in these ‘alternative’ remedies: they simply haven’t enough evidence of possibly working to invest into them.

  • @ Bill Porter: G Edward Griffen explains why you will not find clinical studies on natural remedies, to put it simply there is no money to be made from it.

    There is already money to be made from it! The ‘natural health’ industry is a significant player in the market; the homeopathy company alone turns a very health profit indeed, as do the purveyors of supplements (which in the US brought in $1.5 billion in sales in 2012. In some cases the same pharmaceutical companies you decry are manufacturing and selling ‘natural products’ such as vitamin supplements.

  • Bill Porter said “I have just completed the book The Doctor Who Cured Cancer, Dr Revici who was hounded out of business.”

    Ahhh, no. He was in fact practicing up until he was 90 albeit with some restrictions. TBH, restrictions on 90 year old medical practitioners sounds like a very good idea to me.

    http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/revicis-guided-chemotherapy

  • sooner or later your scan will give you cancer so they will always have a supply of patients

    PAP smears for cervical cancer? Nope, can’t see that taking a sample of cells from the cervix is somehow going to cause cancer to develop. The same is true for blood tests & rectal exams(prostate cancer), use of mole maps (melanoma), colonoscopy & occult-blood testing of stools (bowel cancer)… Your generalisation might possibly be the case for use of X-ray scans, but even there the exposures are very carefully controlled & I doubt cancer would be an inevitable result.

    Generalisations: don’t always help your case.

  • We all are products of our life histories and our genetic inheritance.
    Over a life time of learning, which still goes on, ’tis clear to me and disappointing to know how many of us have extraordinarily fixed beliefs; beliefs which go to extraordinary lengths to avoid either change or at least a modicum of research which might test those beliefs.
    For example how many of you reading this are devoted to beliefs about health, diet, and yes, ‘fraid so, religion……and which are non negotiable. How many are already getting stiff backs when reading here that this writer has given up on believing in imaginary friends, whether they be prophets, Gods or fairies at the bottom of the garden. Was it Professor Dawkins who said that one person’s belief in (a) God indicated his delusional state, but if a society held similar beliefs it was a ‘religion’ not a delusion? (His brother was in disagreement)
    The NZ Journal of Natural Medicine has “guff” as do many so-called studies from accepted medical journals. So what!?
    Such inequities have been around since the days of snake oil, and will continue to be around for longer than any of us. If one has a gripe about anything, you may not have the funds or the power, or the energy to have someone research it, but hopefully you may have the time and incentive to do your own literature research; read widely…..any belief can find support from someone, somewhere….and make your own judgement without the need to scoff too loudly about it.
    Personally I feel sorry for those whose fixed beliefs are not quite the same as mine, but have given up getting too hyped up about it as its not worth the stress. Share an opinion and the rest is up to the listener.
    I continue to enjoy the NZ J of Natural medicine, and I continue to enjoy my health as i test the waters somewhere between the far right and the far left. I’m still going at 75 and hope to be still raving on gently for another 10 to 15 years.
    Cheers
    Dr Neil

  • “The NZ Journal of Natural Medicine has “guff” as do many so-called studies from accepted medical journals. So what!?”

    As far as I’m aware ‘accepted medical journals’ promote vaccination. The ‘journal’ Michael has written about appears to do the opposite (in fact, it appears to take a strongly anti-vaccine viewpoint.). You will not see such ‘guff’ in mainstream medical journals,and as we are seeing in the US, failure to vaccinate children can have unpleasant consequences.

  • NZJNM isn’t a “journal”, but a magazine, one that scoops up material from all sorts of unsound sources.

    Incidentally, the magazine is one of the (smaller) sponsors of the Food Matters Aotearoa meeting I’ve just written about. (Clearly they’re not fussy about the standard of their sponsors!)

  • You abusive, rather than skeptical people amaze me. Your placing science at the forefront of the truth is astoundingly naive.
    When you really read far and wide you will find whistleblowers right now telling us just to what extent “scientific research” is paid for by pharmaceutical companies to create the results they want to be able to sell you more vaccines, more pills, more this and more rubbish that will cause you more harm than anything alternative.
    I suppose you great ‘mainstream’ hacks, reckon good food is rather alternative too.
    We are being has, not by the journal of natural medicine but by corporate fascists who claim science as above reproach. Well it may well be if it done honestly.
    Try http://www.naturalnews.com and see what real science is revealing about your heavily laden heavy metal foods!
    Step out of your put down mentality and look beyond. Personally I would never trust another government guideline, a corporate guarantee nor a Monsanto product even to save my life.
    If you think things are quackery, you obviously can’t line up the ducks!
    To your good health, because you are going to need it when the SHTF.

  • Fenella,
    You have a rather low threshold for what you define as “abusive”.
    And if you consider my post abusive then I can only assume you wrote yours to be abusive?

    “I suppose you great ‘mainstream’ hacks, reckon good food is rather alternative too”

    No, of course not, and this assumption that “alternative medicine” owns the idea that eating well is important for good health is ignorant and arrogant. “Mainstream” science and medicine is very clear about the benefits of healthy eating, however (because of the evidence) we don’t take it to the extreme and assume that eating well cures all disease or that shoving coffee grounds up your bum cures cancer.
    And many of us are skeptical about the claims of the pharmaceutical industry (you might want to check out the book Bad Pharma).
    However, while there are certainly some dodgy pharmaceutical claims, most treatments have been well researched and their is evidence to show they work.

    Can I assume you believe all of the articles whose headings I listed above or are you skeptical in what you read?

  • “Personally I would never trust another government guideline, a corporate guarantee nor a Monsanto product even to save my life.”

    I suppose we should be thankful you hold that point of view so strongly, even though the possibility of you proving it is pretty remote.

Site Meter