Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Facebook and YouTube Overrun With Fake Cancer-Treatment Content

Recommended Posts

Facebook, YouTube Overrun With Bogus Cancer-Treatment Claims

Facebook and YouTube are being flooded with scientifically dubious and potentially harmful information about alternative cancer treatments, which sometimes gets viewed millions of times, a Wall Street Journal examination found.

See More Coverage ›


Man, the Wall Street Journal really has my number.  Above is the email I got today.  Again another article I had to read. 


juice-cancer-cure.jpgUnlike the Colin K sneaker story I shared yesterday, this is indeed newsworthy. But since it is in the Wall Street Journal the people who need this information the most will almost certainly not see or read it.


The sad truth is most people consume "news" via social media.  Social media is not in the business of disseminating news; they are in the business of making as much money as possible.  As a result, social is much more likely to share the bogus, attention grabbing, claims of snake oil sales people over the the truth. Sensational claims go viral, the truth languishes in obscurity, and people die, unnecessarily, as a result.


Many people claim they are smart enough to tell the difference between the truth and lies on social media.  I'm not so confident of this anymore.  Most people simply do not research claims.  At best they simply read more of the same social media served lies to support what they already want to believe.  


There are too many smart people that I personally know who believe the measles vaccine causes autism and won't get their kids vaccinated or who reject the science behind climate change. Twitter's primary function is to serve as the engine behind 45's propaganda machine and people lap it up! Almost 10% of my Twitter followers (all Black people) also follow 45.  From what I can tell they also engage with 45 more too -- as if 45 listens to, or gives and ef what they have to say.






Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm not sure if you consider me one of the "smart" people you know....lol....but you do KNOW me.
And yes....I'm one who is skeptical about these measles vaccinations.
I believe much of them ARE linked to autism and a number of other disorders.....especially among Black boys.

Something is causing the rise in autism.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes @Pioneer1 I'd consider you one of those smart people.


You've consumed a considerable amount of infirmation to lead you to be skeptical. Others who believe this conspiracy theory actually have an autistic child so they are even more throughly convinced.


Sadly formerly eradicated diseases are making a come back and people are dying because of the spread of, and belief in, misinformation. The internet in general," and social media in particular, is a big reason for this. Religion is another.


Read this article to understand why it appears the incidence of Autism appears to have increased.


After you've read it. Let me know if your opinion on the subject has changed, and why.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Not in the least
Infact the the shoddy picture this article portrays of how the CDC and other clinicians actually diagnose autism actualy BOLSTERS my skepticism of the reasons given for the rise in the diagnosis of autism.

The main argument this article makes is that autism isn't really on the rise but that professionals are just getting better at diagnosing it.  But that's a bullshit argument.
Let's dig into it..........................

Ok, right off the bat one of the first statements of the article:



"How do clinicians diagnose autism?
There is no blood test, brain scan or any other objective test that can diagnose autismalthough researchers are actively trying to develop such tests. Clinicians rely on observations of a person’s behavior to diagnose the condition."

This statement is bogus because autism is a NEUROLOGICAL disorder and like all disorders of the nervous system there are tests that will clearly show damage or dysfunction to that system whether it's in the brain, spinal cord, nerves, or in an imbalance of nuerotransmitters.

Austistic people show clear dysfunction in certain parts of their brains and since MRI and CT scans were developed in the 1970s there is no excuse after this for ONLY relying on behavioral observation to diagnose autism.
If a person indeed is autistic it should show on an MRI or CT scan of their brain.








The latest estimate of autism prevalence1 in 68is up 30 percent from the 1 in 88 rate reported in 2008, and more than double the 1 in 150 rate in 2000. In fact, the trend has been steeply upward since the early 1990s, not only in the U.S. but globally, says Maureen Durkin, who heads the network site in Wisconsin.



So according to the author, she admits that globally reports of autism are rising.
Now if the argument that autism is NOT actually rising but professionals are just getting better at diagnosing it....are we to believe that thousands of professionals in different nations around the planet all shared in the same "mass ignorance" of misdiagnosing and under-diagnosing autism in the past?

What are the chances of professionals all over the planet ALL making the same mistakes?









One indication that the method is imperfect is the fact that autism rates vary dramatically between states. The prevalence in Colorado, for instance, is 1 in 93 children, whereas in New Jersey it is 1 in 41. It is unlikely that the rates naturally vary that much between states, Fombonne says. Instead, the difference probably reflects varying levels of autism awareness and of services offered in those states



The author is making suppositions and speculating on the variation between Colorado and New Jersey instead of offering hard facts to explain this discrepancy of autistic diagnosis.   The fact that she uses the term "probably" is enough to dismiss this excuse as mere speculation.
She also insults the intelligence and abilities of professionals by suggesting that perhaps the professionals in Colorado aren't as good at diagnosing autism as those in New Jersey.....again, another case of mass ignorance.








Has the rising awareness of autism contributed to the prevalence?
Increased awareness of autism has undoubtedly contributed to its rise in prevalence, Durkin says.

Until the 1980s, many people with autism were institutionalized, rendering them effectively invisible. Studies show that parents who are aware of autism’s presentationby living near someone with the condition, for examplearemore likely to seek a diagnosis for their children than parents with no knowledge of the condition. Living close to urban centers and having access to good medical care also boost the likelihood of diagnosis.

Greater awareness of autism is also likely to boost CDC estimates by increasing the chances that autism traits, such as lack of eye contact, show up in school and medical records, says Fombonne.

Policy changes may have also played a role. In 2006, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended screening all children for autism during routine pediatrician visits at 18 and 24 months of age. This move may have led to diagnoses for children who would otherwise have slipped under the radar.


Autism prevalence has traditionally been highest in white children in the U.S, but this is starting to change. African-American and Hispanic children have lower rates of diagnosis because of a lack of access to services. Widespread screening has improved detection of autism in these groups, and raised overall prevalence.



Now if you read the above paragraphs about "greater awareness" being responsible for the rise in reports and diagnosis of autism you that may infact be a valid argument IF we were talking about lay people doing the diagnosing.

But we are talking about PROFESSIONAL psychologists and psychiatrists who went to school for years and have been dealing with these patients for years. These are supposed to be experts in properly diagnosing autistics so they ALREADY HAVE AWARENESS of the disorder as well as it's symptoms.

The disorder itself hasn't changed....autism is autism.
What more information does a professional need to know today that wasn't available to them in 1980 to give a more acurrate disagnosis?


Professionals are disagnosing more people because more people are exhibiting more symptoms.....and people are exhibiting more symptons because more people HAVE AUTISM.











Is there no real increase in autism rates, then?
Awareness and changing criteria probably account for the bulk of the rise in prevalence, but biological factors might also contribute, says Durkin. For example, having older parents, particularly an older father, may boost the risk of autism. Children born prematurely also are at increased risk of autism, and more premature infants survive now than ever before.



Notice how she didn't answer her own question?

Because if she said no there isn't an increase....she knows she would be lying.
But if she said YES there IS an increase....she'd have to offer solid scientific explainations as to why this is instead of putting out more speculation like "premie babies" and older fathers.

My overall point is autism isn't a matter of "opinion" but a matter fact and the evidence of it not only appears in a person's behavior but also shows up as abnormal brain function so there is no room to "play" with the figures each year as the author of this article suggests and mis-diagnose any more than you could mis-diagnose a broken foot.

If trained professionals have been finding a continual increase of autism each year it's because the number of autistic patients ARE GOING UP....not because they're getting better at diagnosing a disorder they're already experts in.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

This statement is bogus because autism is a NEUROLOGICAL disorder and like all disorders of the nervous system there are tests that will clearly show damage or dysfunction of the chemistry of that system whether it's in the brain, spinal cord, nerves, or in an imbalance of nuerotransmitters.


This statement illustrates my point. The science says there is no simple test for autism and you dismiss the statement rejecting its validity.


I think i understand why; I notice you, like many people, don't really deal with ambiguity. Things must be black or white for them to make sense to you. If it is not you make it that way to help you understand it.


The symptoms of Austism varys along a spectrum and there are a variety of mental conditions that present in a similiar way. It simply is not a easy thing to diagnose especially when the symptoms are subtle. 


You can't use at CT Scan or an MRI to diagnose Autism (where do you get these ideas man?). These machines were not designed to, and are incapble of, diagnosing specific mental illness. This is not Star Trek.


You just have to accept the fact that diagnosing autism is far from an exact science and there is no connection between it and a measles vaccination.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if disorders like autism and schizophrenia were far more simple to diagnos than the public were led to believe?


What if a scan of the entire brain actually DOES whether or not someone has autism quite plainly?

Take a look at these exerpts from various scientific articles:






Scientists believe that both genetics and environment likely play a role in ASD. There is great concern that rates of autism have been increasing in recent decades without full explanation as to why. Researchers have identified a number of genes associated with the disorder. Imaging studies of people with ASD have found differences in the development of several regions of the brain. Studies suggest that ASD could be a result of disruptions in normal brain growth very early in development. These disruptions may be the result of defects in genes that control brain development and regulate how brain cells communicate with each other.









Using task-based functional MRI (fMRI), many studies have shown dysfunctional activation in critical areas of social communication and RRBs. We also describe several data to show abnormal connectivity in the ASD brains.






Wait, what is this......................





New research is challenging the long-held belief that autism affects only those regions of the brain that control social interaction, communication, and reasoning -- suggesting, instead, that the disorder affects the entire brain.




What do they mean "long held belief" that autism affects certain regions of the brain????
I thought the claim was that autism didn't show up on MRIs and CT scans!

Now they're claiming that there was a LONG HELD belief about it only effecting CERTAIN parts of the brain.  Which obviously means they can SEE the damaged or dysfunctional parts of the brain and determine whether or not a person is autistic.

And by them saying it's "long held" this suggests that they've had this capability for quite some time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are misinterpreting what you are reading.


These sources are sayin that "new" information is forcing them to change "long held" beliefs. In other words, they are continuing to learn more as they learn more


Man you still have not shown anyone saying an MRI or CT scan is a way to test for austism. A CT scan is an Xray do you believe you can test for a mental illness with an xray? Why would you think it is possible to do it with a CT scan?


As far as MRI they are attempting to draw a connection between brain development (like brain volume), and trying to connect thus with Autism. They don't know enough about Autism or the brain to make the definitive statements you are claiming.


In all tbe artilcles you posted (did you read the entire articles?), none of them say measles vaccines causes Autism or that an MRI can be used to diagnose autism.


As recently as 2013, in the DSM 5, the description of what constitutes autism (Autism Spectrum Disorder) has changed. According to the article you shared.


You believe the measles vaccine causes Autism. This belief is not supported by the science or any of the articles you've shared. Nothing will change your mind.


Amazingly, you are even able to contort articles and read things into them to support your consipracy theory.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...